c. 

54-2. 


UC-NRLF 


SB    bl 


C\J 


o 


THE  GRAY  BOOK 


Published  by  the 

GRAY  BOOK  COMMITTEE  S.  C.  V 

By  Authority,  and  Under  Auspices  of 

The  Sons  of  Confederate 
Veterans 


ROLL  OF  HONOR 

The  list  below  contains  the  names  of  those  whose  contributed 
funds  made  possible  the  publication  and  distribution  of  the  Gray 
Book : 


A.  II.  Jennings,  Lynchburg,  Ya. 

\V.  \V.  Old,  Jr.,  Norfolk,  Va. 

\V.  McDonald  Lee,  Trvington,  \'a. 

E.  II.  Blalock,  Washington,  D.  C. 
J.  R.  Price,  Washington,  X.  (1. 
W.  0.  Hart,  New  Orleans,  La. 

W.  C.  Galloway,  Wilmington,  X.  C. 
Edgar  Scurry,  Wichita  Falls,  Tex. 
S.  Y.  Ferguson,  Wichita  Falls,  Tex. 
J.  A.  Jones,  Atlanta,  Ga. 
J.  Gwynn  Gough,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

F.  R.  F  ravel,  Ballston,  Va. 
Seymour  Stewart,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
W.  E.  Quin,  Ft.  Payne,  Ala. 

L.  B.  Hogan,  Aikens,  Ark. 

J.  M.  Ranson,  Harpers  Ferry,  W.  Va. 

J.  F.  Tatem,  Norfolk,  Va. 

J.  S.  Cleghorn,  Lyerly,  Ga. 

J.  H.  Leslie,  Leesburg,  Va. 

J.  L.  Chancellor,  Jacksonville,  Fla. 

A.  L.  Gaston,  Chester,  S.  C. 

J.  B.  Westmoreland,  Woodruff,  S.  C. 

D.  S.  Etheridge,  Chattanooga,  Tenn. 
C.  H.  Bennett,  Washington,  D.  C. 
R.  A.  Doyle,  East  Prarie,  Mo. 

W.  J.  McWilliams,  Monroe,  La. 
X.  B.  Forrest,  Biloxi,  Miss. 
Carl  Hinton,  Denver,  Colo. 
Ben  Watts,  Cave  Springs,  Ga. 
J.  H.  Watkins,  Monroe,  La. 
C.  D.  Murphy,  Atkinson,  X.  C. 
Robt.  Blanks,  Monroe,  La. 
S.  L.  Adams,  South  Boston,  Va. 

E.  W.  R.  Ewing,  Washington,  D.  C. 
C.  H.  Fauntleroy,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Roll   of   Honor 1 

Introduction     3 

The  Generally  Misunderstood  Emancipation  Proclamation  ...  5 

The  South  Xot  Eesponsible  for  Slavery 11 

Treatment  of  Prisoners  in  the  Confederacy 18 

The  South  in  the  Matter  of  Pensions 32 

Injustice  to  the  South 35 

The  Secession  of  1SG1  Founded  Upon  Legal  Eight 41 

The  South  and  Germany 51 

Officers    .                                                                                 51 


The  Gray  Book 


Introduction 

TIIK  reasons  for  the  Gray  Book  are  purely  defensive  and  on  behalf  of  the 
truth  of  history,  and  the  call  for  this  publication  comes  from  attacks, 
past,  present   and  continuing,  upon  the  history,  people  and  institutions 
of  this  Southern  section  of  our  united  country. 

These  attacks  and  untruthful  presentations  of  so  called  history  demand  re 
futation,  for  the  South  cannot  surrender  its  birthright  and  we  pray  the  day 
may  never  dawn  when  it  will  be  willing  to  abandon  the  truth  in  a  cowardly  or 
sluggish  spirit  of  pacifism.     Nor  de  we  care  to  see  the  day  come  when 
"'I  he  lie,  its  work  well  done,  shall  rot, 
Truth  is  strong  and  will  prevail, 
When  none  shall  care  if  it  prevail  or  not." 

During  the  Great  War,  when  the  South  and  all  other  parts  of  our  country 
were  straining  every  nerve  to  defeat  a  common  foe,  strange  and  unbelievable 
as  it  may  seem  at  such  a  time  of  crisis,  there  was  a  most  remarkable  flood  of 
misrepresentation,  false  analogy,  and  distorted  historical  statements  con 
cerning  our  American  history  as  it  particularly  relates  to  the  Southern 
people.  Ignorance,  as  well  as  deliberate  distortion  of  facts,  contributed  to 
this  unfortunate  and  ill-timed  display. 

A  distinguished  New  Englander  writing  to  a  prominent  officer  of  the  Sons 
of  Confederate  Veterans,  stated,  "so  far  as  Xew  England  is  concerned,  preju 
dice  is  still  deep,"  and  those  who  keep  abreast  of  things  know  that  this  state 
of  affairs  is  not  confined  to  that  section.  We  have  the  deliberate  statement 
of  a  well-known  writer  and  literary  worker,  who  knows  whereof  he  speaks, 
that  "much  atrocious  sectionalism"  tries  to  get  into  "publications  which  will 
have  a  very  wide  circulation  in  a  patriotic  capacity." 

Innumerable  examples  are  on  fije  and  could  be  quoted  but  no  one  who  reads 
at  all  could  have  failed  to  note  this  mass  of  unfair  and  untruthful  state- 
emnts  which  for  years  has  filled  newspapers,  magazines  and  periodicals  of 
.the  North. 

Nor  has  this  defamation  ceased  with  the  end  of  the  Great  War — it  still 
goes  on,  unabated,  and  there  is  a  constant  and  strong  stream  of  misrepresen 
tation  and  false  historical  statement  flowing  from  the  North.  Moreover,  this 
constant  reiteration  of  misstatement  and  falsehood  has  had  the  effect  of 
totally  misleading  and  blinding  to  the  truth  of  our  country's  history  foreign 
ers  who  would  naturally  be  unbiased  and  neutral.  This  was  abundantly 
proven  by  Lloyd  George's  remarkable  cable  to  the  New  York  Times  on  the 
occasion  of  Lincoln's  birthday  during  the  las  year  of  the  Great  War,  "we  are 
fighting  the  same  battle  which  your  countrymen  fought  under  Lincoln's 
leadership  fifty  years  ago.  Lincoln  did  not  shrink  from  vindicating  obth 
union  and  freedom  by  the  terrible  instrument  of  war." 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  call  attention  to  the  totally  untrue  inferences 
to  be  drawn  from  this  utterance,  addressed  to  the  world  at  large  by  England's 
leading  statesman.  And  in  France  when  Leon  Buorgeoise  cited  the  trial 
and  execution  of  Major  Wirz  as  a  legal  precedent  for  the  trial  of  the  German 
Kaiser  by  the  Allies,  he  exhibited  the  same  total  misconception  of  the  truth 
of  our  history,  misled  of  course  by  years  of  false  Northern  teaching  of  our 
country's  affairs.  And  of  late  there  has  appeared  a  play,  based  upon  the 
life  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  which  has  been  witnessed  by  thousands  of  people 
in  England  and  this  country  and  tens  of  thousands  of  approving  words 


444256 


written  concerning  it,  which  totally  misrepresents  the  spirit  of  that  time  and 
whose  whole  trend   is  unfair  and  unjust  to  the  South. 

One  of  the  points  upon  which  the  South  is  most  frequently  and  pointedly 
assailed  and  misrepresented  is  the  claim  that  the  North  fought  the  war  to 
five  the  slaves.  'I  his  statement  is  contrary  to  the  assertions  of  Lincoln. 
Grant  and  Sherman  and  contrary  to  all  the  common  sense  evidence  of  the 
times.  With  scarcely  one  soldier  in  t\\vnt\  in  the  Southern  Armies  owning 
even  one  slave  and  with  thousands  of  Northern  soldiers  being  slave  owners, 
is  it  reasonable  to  assert  that  each  went  to  war  to  light  against  his  own 
interests?  Is  it  not  a  repulsive  thought  that  any  mind  could  be  so  consti 
tuted  as  to  believe  that  Robert  K.  Lee,  Albert  Sidney  .Johnson  and  Stonewall 
•  lackson  fought  their  immortal  light  to  hold  some  negroes  in  slavery!  Noth 
ing  could  be  more  unfair  or  untruthful  than  to  represent  the  North  as  going 
into  the  War  Between  the  States  as  upon  some  holy  crusade  to  free  the 
slaves  from  their  Southern  owners,  to  whom,  it  may  be  remarked  in  passing, 
in  very  large  measure  they  had  been  sold  by  this  same  North — and  the  money 
not  refunded! 

And  yet  a  prominent  American  author  makes  thi*  a^ertioii  in  an  article 
lie  wrote  at  the  request  of  the  United  States  Committee  on  Public  Informa 
tion,  which  article  thus  misrepresenting  the  South  and  hypocritically  lauding 
the  North  was  taken  by  this  government  Committee  to  France  and  scattered 
through  her  schools  and  among  her  children  to  teach  them  what  "sort  of 
people  we  Americans  are."  Further,  a  well-known  writer  and  former  divine, 
wrote  an  article,  using  most  offensive  terms,  misrepresenting  the  South,  which 
was  most  prominently  featured  in  the  oflicial  publication  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A., 
and  was  scattered  through  the  cantonments  and  camps  of  France  and  this 
country  during  the  war. 

Instances  without  number  could  he  quoted,  but  these  few  sample  cases  show 
the  direction  and  nature  of  the  tide  of  falsehood  and  misrepresentation  con 
stantly  pouring  upon  the  Southern  people. 

Another  point  upon  which  wre  are  constantly  misrepresented  is  the  applica 
tion  of  the  term  "rebellion"  to  the  secession  of  the  Southern  states  from  the 
Union.  Without  going  into  details,  it  is  a  conceded  fact  that  during  the 
earlier  days  of  the  Union  the  right  of  a  state  to  secede  was  generally  recog 
nized.  This  right  was  asserted  more  than  once  by  states  in  the  North,  who 
later  refused  to  allow  the  South  to  assert  the  same  claim.  Massachusetts 
was  a  prominent  believer  in  the  rights  of  secession  in  the  early  days.  John 
Quincy  Adams  declared  on  the  floor  of  Congress,  at  the  time  of  the  admission 
of  Texas  as  a  state,  that  New  England  ought  to  secede,  while  the  Hartford 
Convention  threatened  similar  steps  while  our  country  was  actively  engaged 
in  the  war  of  1812.  Even  at  the  time  when  the  North  declared  the  South 
had  no  right  to  secede,  although  having  themselves  asserted  that  right  pre 
viously,  we  see  West  Virginia  encouraged  and  assisted  in  secession  from  the 
mother  state,  while  of  late  years  the  secession  of  Panama  from  Colombia 
was  not  only  recognized  by  this  government,  but  the  forces  of  the  United 
States  made  the  secession  an  accomplished  fact.  The  South  is  willing  to 
stand  by  her  record  as  to  secession — she  is  unwilling  to  submit  to  the  false 
claims  now  asserted  by  the  North  that  the  war  wTas  waged  to  grant  liberty 
to  suffering  slaves. 

In  the  face  of  this  state  of  affairs,  the  Sons  of  Confederate  Veterans  have 
determined  to  offer  refutation  of  a  part  at  least  of  the  false  history  which 
almost  overwhelms  us  and  through  this  issue  of  this  modest  book,  which  we 
now  offer,  we  hope  to  attract  attention  to  the  truth,  and  do,  in  our  feeble 
way,  our  part  toward  establishing  it. 

A.  H.  JENNINGS,  Chairman. 
THE  GRAY  BOOK  COMMITTEE  S.  C.  V. 

Arthur  IT.  Jennings,  Chairman,  Lynchburg,  Va. 

Matthew   Page  Andrews,  Baltimore,  Md. 

C.  H.  Fauntleroy,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

4 


The  Generally  Misunderstood  Eman 
cipation  Proclamation 

THEEE  is  no  document  so  little  read  or  so  widely  misunder 
stood  as  the  Emancipation  Proclamation — there  is  no  sub 
ject  so  entirely  misstated  as  Lincoln's  connection  with,  and 
attitude  toward,  freeing  the  negro. 

Lincoln,  who  never  freed  a  slave,  is  called  "The  Emancipator/' 
while  The  Emancipation  Proclamation,  a  war  measure  of  the  stern 
est  description,  holding  within  its  possibilities  an  untold  measure  of 
woe  for  the  South,  is  almost  universally  hailed  as  a  great  "humani 
tarian"  document ! 

To  those  who  wish  to  know  the  truth,  attention  is  directed  to 
these  several  points  especially — the  document  is-  self-styled  "a  war 
measure;  it  not  only  did  not  free  a  single  slave  (this  was  done  long 
afterward  by  Congressional  action  and  the  13th  amendment)  but  it 
expressly  and  particularly  continued  to  hold  in  bondage  the  only 
slaves  it  could  have  freed,  viz.,  those  in  country  held  by  Federal 
armies  and  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  government; 
intended  as  a  war  measure  to  demoralize  the  South  and  destroy  the 
morale  of  Southern  armies  there  is  a  pointed  hint  at  servile  insur 
rection  in  paragraph  third  from  the  last  in  the  proclamation  of 
January  1st,  1863. 

Attention  is  also  called  to  Lincoln's  attitude  toward  freeing  the 
negro,  as  clearly  expressed  by  him  in  a  letter  to  Horace  Greely,  just 
prior  to  issuing  the  proclamation. 

This  letter,  inserted  below,  is  copied  faithfully  from  the  files  of 
the  Xew  York  Tribune  now  in  the  Congressional  Library.  It  most 
abundantly  speaks  for  itself.  In  it  Lincoln  makes  use  of  expres 
sions  which  entirely  dispose  of  any  claim  that  he  was  waging  war 
to  free  the  slaves  and  which  confound  those  who  so  persistently  mis 
represent  the  causes  of  the  war  between  the  states. 

"My  paramount  object,"  he  says,  "in  this  struggle  is  to  save  the 
Union,  and  is  not,  either  to  save  or  destroy  slavery.  If  I  could  save 
the  Union  without  freeing  any  slave  I  would  do  it :  and  if  I  could 
save  it  by  freeing  all  the  slaves,  I  would  do  it.  What  I  do  about 
slavery  and  the  colored  race  I  do  because  I  believe  it  helps  to  save 
the  Union." 

This  letter  and  the  terms  and  restrictions  of  the  Proclamation 
itself  show  beyond  any  doubt  the  entirely  war-like  purpose  of  the 
proclamation  and  the  entire  absence  of  any  humanitarian  element 
either  in  Lincoln's  .purposes  in  promulgating  it  or  in  the  provisions 
of  the  instrument  itself. 


:  l  £incoMV  tetter  to  Greeley,  (from  Vol.  22  Xew  York  rrribune, 
August  25,  1862,  page  4,  column  :'>,  on  file  in  Congressional  Li 
brary),  with  a  IV w  preliminary  and  non-essential  sentences  omitted: 

EXECUTIVE  MANSION,  WASHINGTON, 
August  22,  1862. 

"Hon.  Horace  Greeley  : 

Dear  Sir: 

I  would  save  the  I'liion.  I  would  save  it  the  shortest  way  under 
the  const  it  ut  ion.  The  sooner  the  National  authority  ran  he  re 
stored,  the  nearer  the  Union  will  he  'the  Tnion  as  it  was.'  If  there 
be  those  who  would  not  save  the  t'nion  unless  they  could  at  the 
same  time  save  slavery,  I  do  not  agree  with  them.  My  paramount 
those  who  would  not  save  the  Tnion  unless  they  could  at  the  same 
time  destroy  slavery,  I  do  not  agree  with  them.  My  paramount 
object  in  this  struggle  is  to  save  the  Union,  and  is  not  either  to 
save  or  destroy  slavery.  If  T  could  save  the  Union  without  freeing 
any  slave,  1  would  do  it:  and  it'  1  could  save  it  by  freeing  all  the 
slaves,  I  would  do  it:  and  if  I  could  save  it  by  freeing  some  and 
leaving  others  alone,  1  would  also  do  that.  What  \  do  about  slavery 
and  tlie  colored  race,  1  do  because  I  believe  it  helps  to  save  this 
Union  :  and  what  I  forbear,  I  forbear  because  I  do  not  believe  it 
would  help  to  save  the  Union.  I  have  here  stated  my  purpose  ac 
cording  to  my  view  of  official  duty  and  I  intend  no  modification  of 
my  oft  expressed  personal  wish  thai  all  men,  everywhere,  could  be 

free. 

Yours, 

A.  LINCOLN." 

Here  follows  the  preliminary  proclamation  of  Sept.  22,  1862, 
and  then  afterward  the  "Emancipation  Proclamation"  itself,  ex 
empting  from  its  provisions  all  those  slaves  in  territory  held  by 
Federal  amis  and  under  jurisdiction  of  he  IT.  S.  government. 

By  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
A  PKOOLAMATTOX. 

T.  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  ('oiuniander-ii)-('hiet'  af  the  Army  and  Navy  thereof,  do  hereby 
proclaim  and  declare  that  hereafter,  as  heretofore,  the  war  will  be 
prosecuted  for  the  object  of  practically  restoring  the  constitutional 
relation  between  the  United  States  and  each  of  the  States  and  the 
people  therof  in  which  States  that  relation  is  or  may  bo  suspended 
or  distributed. 

That  it  is  my  purpose,  upon  the  next  meeting  of  Congress,  to 
again  recommend  the  adoption  of  a  practical  measure  tendering 
pecuniary  aid  to  the  free  acceptance  or  rejection  of  all  slave  States, 
so  called',  the  people  whereof  may  not  then  be  in  rebellion  against 


the  United  States,  ;m<l  which  Stales  may  then  have  voluntarily 
adopted,  <>r  thereafter  may  voluntarily  adopt,  immediate  or  gradual 
aholishinent  of  slavery  within  their  respective  limits;  and  that  the 
cll'ort  to  colon ixe  persons  of  African  descent  with  their  consent  upon 
this  continent  or  elsewhere,  with  the  previously  ohtained  consent 
of  the  governments  existing  there,  will  he  continued. 

That  on  the  1st  day  of  January,  A.  D.  18<>:}  all  ])ersons  held  as 
slaves  within  any  State  or  designated  part  of  a  State  the  people 
whereof  shall  then  he  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States  shall  be 
then,  thenceforward,  and  forever  free;  and  the  executive  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  including  the  military  and  naval 
authority  thereof,  will  recognize  and  maintain  the  freedom  of  such 
persons  and  will  do  no  act  or  acts  to  repress  such  persons,  or  any 
of  them,  in  any  efforts  they  may  make  for  their  actual  freedom. 

That  the  Executive  will  on  the  1st  day  of  January  aforesaid,  by 
proclamation,  designate  the  States  and  parts  of  States,  if  any,  in 
which  the  people  thereof,  respectively,  shall  then  he  in  rebellion 
against  the  United  States ;  and  the  fact  that  any  State  or  the  people 
thereof  shall  on  that  day  he  in  good  faith  represented  in  the  Con 
gress  of  the  United  States  by  members  chosen  thereto  at  elections 
wherein  a  majority  of  the  qualified  voters  of  such  State  shall  have 
participated  shall,  in  the  absence  of  strong  countervailing  testimony, 
be  deemed  conclusive  evidence  that  such  State  and  the  people 
thereof  are  not  then  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States. 

That  attention  is  hereby  called  to  an  act  of  Congress  entitled  "An 
act  to  make  an  additional  article  of  war,''  approved  March  1:>.  1862, 
and  which  act  is  in  the  words  and  figure  following: 

"Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  here 
after  the  following  shall  be  promulgated  as  an  additional  article  of 
war  for  the  government  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  and  shall 
be  obeyed  and  observed  as  such  : 

A'i. — All  officers  or  persons  in  the  military  or  naval  service  of 
the  United  States  are  prohibited  from  employing  any  of  the  forces 
under  their  respective  commands  for  the  purpose  of  returning  fugi 
tives  fi-oin  service  or  labor  who  may  have  escaped  from  any  persons 
to  whom  such  service  or  labor  is  claimed  to  be  due,  and  any  officer 
who  should  be  found  yiu'lty  by  a  court-martial  of  violating  this 
article  shall  be  d;s»nssed  from  the  service. 

Sec.  '2.  And  he  it  further  enacted.  That  this  act  shall  take  effect 
from  and  after  its  passage." 

Also  to  the  ninth  and  tenth  se"t;ons  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act 
to  suppress  insurrection,  to  punish  treason  and  rebellion,  to  seize 
and  confiscate  the  property  of  rebels,  and  for  other  purposes,"  ap 
proved  July  17  18f)2.  and  which  sections  are  in  the  wo"ds  and 
figures  following : 

Sec.  9.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  all  slaves  of  persons  who 
shall  hereafter  be  engaged  in  rebellion  against  the  Government  of 


the  United  States,  or  who  shall  in  any  way  give  aid  or  comfort 
thereto,  escaping  from  such  persons  and  taking  refuge  within  the 
lines  of  the  army,  and  all  slaves  captured  from  such  persons  or  de 
serted  by  them  and  coming  under  the  control  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  and  all  slaves  of  such  persons  found  on  (or) 
being  within  any  place  occupied  by  rebel  forces  and  afterwards 
occupied  by  the  forces  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  deemed  captives 
of  war  and  shall  be  forever  free  of  their  servitude  and  not  again 
held  as  slaves. 

Sec.  10.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  no  slave  escaping  into 
any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia  from  any  other 
State  shall  be  delivered  up  or  in  any  way  impeded  or  hindered  of 
his  liberty  except  for  crime  or  some  offense  against  the  laws,  unless 
the  person  claiming  said  fugitive  shall  first  make  oath  that  the 
person  to  whom  the  labor  or  service  of  such  fugitive  is  alleged  to 
be  due  is  his  lawful  owner  and  has  not  borne  arms  against  the 
United  States  in  the  present  rebellion  nor  in  any  way  given  aid  and 
comfort  thereto;  and  no  person  engaged  in  the  military  or  naval 
service  of  the  United  States  shall,  under  any  pretense  whatever, 
assume  to  decide  on  the  validity  of  the  claim  of  any  person  to  the 
service  or  labor  of  any  other  person  or  surrender  up  any  such  person 
to  the  claimant  on  pain  of  being  dismissed  from  the  service." 

And  I  do  hereby  enjoin  upon  and  order  all  persons  engaged  in 
the  military  and  naval  service  of  the  United  States  to  observe, 
obey,  and  enforce  within  their  respective  spheres  of  service  the  act 
and  sections  above  recited. 

And  the  Executive  will  in  due  time  recommend  that  all  citizens 
of  the  United  States  who  shall  have  remained  loyal  thereto  through 
out  the  rebellion  shall,  upon  the  restoration  of  the  constitutional 
relation  between  the  United  States  and  their  respective  States  and 
people,  if  that  relation  shall  have  been  suspended  or  disturbed,  be 
compensated  for  all  losses  by  acts  of  the  United  States,  including 
the  loss  of  slaves. 

Tn  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the 
seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  City  of  Washington,  this  22d  day  of  Sep- 
(SEAL)     tember,   A.    D.    1862,   and   of   the   Independence   of   the 
United  States  the  eighty-seventh. 

ABRAHAM  LINVOLX. 

By  the  President: 

WILLIAM   II.  SKWAI;I>.  Secret  <iri/  of  Stale. 

Taken  from  "A  Compilation  of  the  Messages  and  Papers  of 
the  Presidents  1789-1897,  published  by  authority  of  Congress  by 
James  D.  Richardson,  a  Representative  from  the  State  of  Tennessee. 
Volume  VI,  Page  96." 


1>\  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
A  PEOCLAMATIOX. 

Whereas  on  the  22d  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1862,  a  proclama 
tion  was  issued  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  containing, 
among  other  things,  the  following,  to  wit : 

"That  on  the  1st  day  of  January,  A.  D.  186:3,  all  persons  held  as 
slaves  within  any  State  or  designated  part  of  a  State  the  people 
whereof  shall  then  be  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States  shall 
be  then,  thenceforward,  and  forever  free;  and  the  executive  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  including  the  military  and  naval 
authority  thereoof,  will  recognize  and  maintain  the  freedom  of  such 
persons  and  will  do  no  act  or  acts  to  repress  such  persons,  or  any 
of  them,  in  any  efforts  they  may  make  for  their  actual  freedom. 

That  the  Executive  will  on  the  1st  day  of  January  aforesaid,  by 
proclamation,  designated  the  States  and  parts  of  States,  if  any,  in 
which  the  people  thereof,  respectively,  shall  then  be  in  rebellion 
against  the  United  States;  and  the  fact  that  any  State  or  the  people 
thereof  shall  on  that  day  be  in  good  faith  represented  in  the  Con 
gress  of  the  United  States  by  members  chosen  thereto  at  elections 
wherein  a  majority  of  the  qualified  voters  of  such  States  shall  have 
participated  shall,  in  the  absence  of  strong  countervailing  testimony, 
be  deemed  conclusive  evidence  that  such  State  and  the  people  there 
of  are  not  then  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States." 

Now,  therefore,  I,  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United 
States,  by  virtue  of  the  power  in  me  vested  as  Commander-in-Chief 
of  the  Army  and  Xavy  of  the  Unite/I  States  in  time  of  actual  armed 
rebellion  against  the  authority  and  Government  of  the  United 
States,  and  as  a  fit  and  necessary  war  measure  for  suppressing  said 
rebellion,  do,  on  this  1st  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1863,  and  in  accord 
ance  with  my  purpose  so  to  do,  publicly  proclaimed  for  the  full 
period  of  one  hundred  days  from  the  day  first  above  mentioned, 
order  and  designate  as  the  States  and  parts  of  States  wherein  the 
people  thereof,  respectively,  are  this  day  in  rebellion  against  the 
United  States  the  following,  to  wit: 

Arkansas,  Texas,  Louisiana  (except  the  parishes  of  St.  Bernard, 
Plaquemines,  Jefferson,  St.  John,  St.  Charles,  St.  James,  Ascension, 
Assumption,  Terrebonne,  Lafourche,  St.  Mary,  St.  Martin,  and 
Orleans,  including  the  city  of  New  Orleans),  Mississippi,  Alabama, 
Florida,  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  Xorth  Carolina,  and  Virginia 
(except  the  forty-eight  counties  designated  as  West  Virginia,  and 
also  the  counties  of  Berkeley,  Accomac,  Northampton,  Elizabeth 
City,  York,  Princess  Anne,  and  Norfolk,  including  the  cities  of 
Norfolk  and  Portsmouth),  and  which  excepted  parts  are  for  the 
present  left  precisely  as  if  this  proclamation  were  not  issued. 

And  by  virtue  of  the  power  and  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  I  do 
order  and  declare  that  all  persons  held  as  slaves  within  said  desig- 


nated  States  and  parts  of  States  arc1  and  henceforward  shall  he  free, 
and  that  the  executive  government  of  the  Tinted  States,  including 
the  military  and  naval  authorities  the.vof.  will  recognize  and  main 
tain  the  freedom  of  said  persons. 

And  I  hereby  enjoin  upon  the  people  so  declared  to  he  free  to 
abstain  from  all  violence,  unless  in  necessary  self-defense;  and  1 
recommend  to  them  that  in  all  cases  when  allowed  they  labor  faith 
fully  for  reasonable  wages. 

And  I  further  declare  and  make  known  that  such  persons  of  suit 
able  condition  will  be  received  into  the  armed  service  of  the  United 
States  to  garrison  forts,  positions,  stations,  and  other  places  and  to 
man  vessels  of  all  sorts  in  said  service. 

And  upon  this  act,  sincerely  believed  to  be  an  act  of  justice, 
warranted  by  the  Constitution  upon  military  necessity,  I  invoke  the 
considerate  judgment  of  mankind  and  the  gracious  favor  of  Al 
mighty  God. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  tin- 

seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed.    Done  at  the  city  of 

(SEAL)      Washington,  this  1st  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1863,  and  of 

the  Independence  of  the  United   States  of  America  the 

eighty-seventh. 

ABRAHAM  LIXCOLX. 
By  the  President : 

WILLIAM  IT.  SKWARD,  ^ecrclnnj  of  tftate. 

Taken  from  UA  Compilation  of  the  Messages  and  Papers  of 
the  Presidents  1789-1897,  published  by  authority  of  Congress  by 
James  I).  Uichardson,  a  Representative  from  the  State  of  Tennessee, 
Volume  VI,  Page  157." 


10 


'The  South  Not  Responsible  for  Slavery 

Neither  tin1   Introduction   of   Slaves   into   America  nor  their  con 
tinued  Importation  can  l>e  Chained  to  the  South. 
By  Arthur  H.  Jennings.  Chairman  Gray  Book  Com. 


Undoubtedly  Kngland,  Spain  and  the  Dutch  were  primarily  and 
largely  responsible  for  the  introduction  and  the  earlier  importa 
tion  of  slaves  to  this  country.  As  Bancroft  says,  "The  sovereigns 
of  Knirland  and  Spain  were  the  greatest  slave  merchants  in  the 
world." 

Later  on,  this  country  came  into  prominence  in  the  traffic  in 
human  bodies  and  DuBois,  the  negro  historical  writer  says,  "The 
American  slave  trade  came  to  he  carried  on  principally  by  United 
States  capital,  in  United  States  ships,  officered  by  United  States 
riti/ens  and  under  the  United  States  flag."  Supporting  this,  Dr. 
Phillips  of  Tulane  University  in  his  section  of  "The  South  in  the 
Building  of  the  Xation/7  states,  "The  great  volume  of  the  slave 
traffic  from  the  earlier  l?th  century  onward  was  carried  on  by 
English  and  Yankee  vessels,  with  some  competition  from  the  French 
and  the  Dutch/7 

The  responsibility  for  this  home,  or  American,  participation  in 
the  slave  importing  business  rests  primarily  and  principally  upon 
Xew  England  and  likewise,  very  largely,  upon  Xew  York.  It  was  a 
b<>ast  and  a  taunt  of  pre-war  days  with  pro-slavery  orators  that, 
"The  Xorth  imported  slaves,  the  South  only  bought  them" — and 
historians  assert  that  "there  is  some  truth  in  the  assertion." 

Indeed,  it  has  been  widely  claimed  that  "Xo  Southern  man  or 
Southern  ship  ever  brought  a  slave  to  the  United  States,"  and  while 
this  statement  is  disputed  and  is  perhaps  not  strictly  true  according 
to  the  letter,  it  is  undoubedly  true  in  spirit,  for  the  cases  where  a 
Southern  man  or  Southern  ship  could  be  charged  with  importing 
slaves  are  few  indeed,  while  Xew  England,  as  well  as  Xew  York, 
were  openly  and  boldly  engaged  in  the  traffic,  employing  hundreds 
of  ships  in  the  nefarious  business. 

"Slavery,"  says  Henry  TVatterson,  in  the  Louisville  Courier  Jour 
nal,  "existed  in  the  beginning  Xorth  and  South.  But  the  Xorth 
finding  slave  labor  unsuited  to  its  needs  and,  therefore,  unprofitable, 
sold  its  slaves  to  the  South,  not  forgetting  to  pocket  the  money  it 
got  for  them,  Imring  indeed  at  great  profit  brouglit  tJn>n/  orcr  from 
t  \  fricn  in  its  ships. 

Mr.  Cecil  Chesterman,  a  distinguished  English  historian,  in  his 
"History  of  the  United  States"  says  on  this  point,  "The  Xorth  had 
been  the  original  slave  traders.  The  African  slave  trade  had  been 

11 


their  particular  industry.  Boston  itself  had  risen  to  prosperity  on 
the  profits  of  the  abominable  traffic.77 

The  Marquis  of  Lothian,  in  his  "Confederate  Secession'7  makes 
the  statement  that  "out  of  1500  American  slave  traders,  only  five 
were  from  the  South/7  but  apparent!}7  this  statement  is  contradicted 
later  in  his  volume  when  he  says,  "out  of  202  slavers  entering  the 
port  of  Charleston,  S.  0.,  in  four  years,  1796  to  1799  inclusive,  91 
were  English,  88  Yankees,  10  were  French  and  13  South.  *  *  *  " 

Many  indeed  are  the  authorities  that  support  the  statement  that 
the  South  did  not  import  slaves.  "Slavery,77  says  Senator  John  W. 
Daniel  of  Virginia."  was  thrust  on  the  South,  an  uninvited,  aye, 
a  forbidden  guest"  and  Dr.  Charles  Morris,  in  his  "History  of  Civ 
ilization'7  says  "The  institution  of  slavery  was  not  of  their  making; 
it  had  been  thrust  upon  their  fathers  against  their  violent  oppo 
sition.77 

M  rs.  Sea,  in  her  book,  "The  Synoptical  Eeview  of  Slavery,77  says 
"I  have  heard  the  statement  made,  and  gentlemen  of  the  highest 
standing  for  scholarly  attainment  given  as  authority,  that  no  South 
ern  man  ever  owned  a  slave  ship  and  that  no  slave  ship  handled  by 
a  Southern  man  ever  brought  a  cargo  of  slaves  from  Africa.77 

Dr.  Lyon  G.  Tyler,  the  scholarly  President  of  William  and  Mary 
College,  Virginia,  and  an  authority,  says,  regarding  this  statement, 
"I  am  sure  it  can  be  said  that  no  Southern  man  or  Southern  ship, 
as  far  as  is  know,  engaged  in  the  slave  trade.77 

References  to  Southern  ships  or  Southern  men  as  engaged  in  the 
slave  importing  business  are  at  best  vague.  The  famous  case  of 
the  "Wanderer,77  one  of  the  most  noted  of  slave  trading  vessels,  is 
often  mentioned  and  her  ownership  is  credited  to  men  of  Charleston 
and  Savannah,  but  even  if  this  be  true  she  was  built  in  Xew  York, 
her  captain  was  a  New  York  man,  and  a  member  of  the  Xew  York 
Yacht  Club  and  the  "Wanderer77  sailed  under  the  proud  flag  of 
that  Club  when  she  went  to  the  Congo  after  slaves.  Her  captain 
was  later  expelled  from  the  club  for  this  offense. 

The  fact  that  there  was  domestic  traffic  in  slaves,  some  of  this 
domestic  traffic  being  carried  on  through  coastwise  trading,  seems 
to  have  confused  some  and  induced  them  to  believe  the  South  en 
gaged  in  the  slave  importing  business.  On  the  other  hand,  the  re 
sponsibility  of  Xew  England  and  Xew  York  for  the  almost  exclu 
sive  monopoly  of  domestic  participation  in  the  slave  importing 
business  is  most  clearly  established.  Massachusettes  looms  largely 
to  the  front  when  investigation  into  this  gruesome  subject  is  pur 
sued.  The  first  slave  ship  of  this  country,  the  "Desire,77  was  fitted 
out  in  Massachusetts,  and  set  sail  for  the  coast  of  Africa  from 
Marblehead.  Massachusetts  was  the  first  of  all  the  colonies  to 
authorize  the  establishment  of  slavery  by  statute  law,  doing  this 
some  decades  before  her  example  was  followed  by  any  of  the  South 
ern  colonies.  The  first  statute  establishing  slavery  in  America  is 
.embodied  in  the  Code  of  the  Massachusetts  Colony  in  Xew  England, 

12 


adopted  in  1641,  and  it  should  be  realized  that  slave  trading  in 
Massachusetts  was  not  a  private  enterprise  but  was  cajried  on  by 
authority  of  the  Plymouth  Eock  eolony. 

The  Puritans  early  evinced  a  tendency  to  enslave  Indian  cap 
tives  and  sell  them  out  of  the  country,  and  from  that  early  day 
down  to  a  period  practically  after  the  War  Between  the  States  had 
begun  (for  the  last  slave  ship,  the  Nightingale,  sailing  from  Boston 
and  fitted  out  there,  with  900  slaves  on  board  was  captured  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Congo  River  after  the  war  had  started  )  New  England, 
with  Massachusetts  leading,  stood  preeminent  in  the  slave  trade. 

Much  of  the  prominence  and  wealth  of  these  states  was  derived 
!'n»m  the  slave  trade  and  the  commercial  importance  of  such  towns 
as  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  was  based  entirely  upon  the  traffic.  It 
is  stated  that  Faneuil  Hall,  the  famous  "Cradle  of  Liberty"  where 
so  many  abolition  speeches,  denunciatory  of  the  South  were  made, 
was  built  with  money  earned  in  the  slave  traffic,  as  Peter  Faneuil 
was  actively  engaged  in  it.  "It  was  a  traffic,"  says  Dr.  Phillips,  in 
'Tin1  South  in  Building  of  the  Nation/  "in  whicr  highly  honorable 
men  like  Peter  Faneuil  engaged  and  which  the  Puritans  did  not 
condemn  in  the  Colonial  period."  Stephen  Girard  is  another  prom 
inent  philanthropist  of  the  North  who  made  money  in  slaves, 
working  large  numbers  of  them  on  a  Louisiana  sugar  plantation 
which  he  owned,  and  it  is  asserted  that  Girard  College  was  built 
with  money  earned  by  the  labors  of  these  slaves. 

In  fact,  DuBois  asserts  that  the  New  England  conscience  which 
would  not  allow  slavery  to  flourish  on  the  sacred  soil  of  Massa 
chusetts  did  not  hesitate  to  seize  the  profits  resulting  from  the  rape 
of  slaves  from  their  African  homes  and  their  sale  to  Southern 
planters.  But,  according  to  John  Adams,  it  was  not  a  tender  con 
science  but  an  economic  reason  upon  which  the  forbidding  of  slaves 
in  Massachusetts  was  based,  for  he  is  quoted  as  saying,  "Argument 
might  have  had  some  weight  in  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  Massa 
chusetts,  but  the  real  cause  was  the  multiplication  of  laboring  white 
people  who  no  longer  would  suffer  the  rich  to  employ  these  sable 
rivals  so  much  to  their  injury."  Thomas  Jefferson,  who  had  intro 
duced  a  scathing  denunciation  of,  and  protest  against,  the  slave 
trade  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  withdrew  it  upon  the 
in-istence  of  Adams  and  other  New  Englanders,  and  he  indulges  in 
the  following  little  bit  of  sarcasm  at  their  expense,  "our  Northern 
friends  who  were  tender  under  these  censures,  for,  though  their 
people  have  very  few  slaves,  yet  they  had  been  considerable  carriers 
of  them  to  others.*' 

Economic  reasons  were  the  base  of  abolition  of  slavery  in  New 
England.  There  is  abundance  of  record  to  show  dissatisfaction 
with  negro  labor,  who  were  stated  to  be  "eye  servants,  great  thieves, 
much  addicted  to  lying  and  stealing,"'  and  the  superiority  of  white 
labor  was  brought  prominently  forward.  Furthermore,  the  mor 
tality  of  the  negroes  in  the  cold  New  England  climate  was  great 

13 


and  figures  were  brought  forward  to  show  how  their  importation 
into  the  section  was  not  "profitable."  (iovernor  Dudley  in  a  formal 
report  in  1708  stated  "negroes  have  been  found  unprofitable  invest 
ments,  the  planters  preferring  white  servants." 

Boston  was  all  along  prominent  in  the  slave  trade,  the  "Conti 
nental  Monthly"  of  Xew  York,  as  late  as  January,  1862,  being 
quoted  as  saying,  "The  city  of  Xew  York  has  been  until  late  (1862) 
the  principal  port  of  the  world  for  this  infamous  traffic,  the  cities  of 
Portland  and  Boston  being  only  second  to  her  in  that  distinction." 
"Slave  dealers,"  it  continues,  "added  much  to  the  wealth  of  our 
metropolis." 

Vessels  from  Massachusetts,  Ehode  Island,  Connecticut,  and  Xew 
Hampshire  were  early  and  largely  engaged  in  the  slave  trade,  and 
it  is  a  very  significant  fact  that  while  duties,  more  or  less  heavy, 
were  imposed  upon  the  imported  slaves  in  Southern  harbors,  and 
other  harbors  of  the  country,  the  ports  of  Xew  England  were  offered 
as  a  free  exchange  mart  for  slavers. 

Xew  England  citizens  were  traders  by  instinct  and  profession, 
and  with  the  birth  of  commerce  in  the  Xew  World  they  eagerly 
turned  to  the  high  profits  of  the  African  slave  trade  and  made  it  a 
regular  business.  The  "Hartford  Courant"  in  an  issue  of  July, 
1916,  said,  "Northern  rum  had  much  to  do  with  the  extension  of 
slavery  in  the  South.  Many  people  in  this  state  (Connecticut)  as 
well  as  in  Boston,  made  snug  fortunes  for  themselves  by  sending 
rum  to  Africa  to  be  exchanged  for  slaves  and  then  selling  the  slaves 
to  the  planters  of  Southern  states." 

Rhode  Island  at  an  early  date  had  150  vessels  engaged  in  the  slave 
trade,  while  at  a  later  date,  when  Xew  York  had  loomed  to  the  front 
of  the  trade,  the  Xew  York  "Journal  of  Commerce"  is  quoted  as 
saying,  "FewT  of  our  readers  are  aware  of  the  extent  to  which  this 
infernal  traffic  is  carried  on  by  vessels  clearing  from  Xew  York  and 
down  town  merchants  of  wealth  and  respectability  are  engaged  ex 
tensively  in  buying  and  selling  African  negroes,  and  have  been  for 
an  indefinite  number  of  years."' 

As  early  as  1711  a  slave  market  was  established  in  Xew  York 
City  in  the  neighborhood  of  Wall  street  where  slaves  from  Africa 
were  brought  to  supply  the  Southern  market..  There  was  another 
prominent  slave  market  in  Boston.  The  slaves  were  hurried  into 
the  South  as  fast  as  possible  as  hundreds  died  from  cold  and  ex 
posure  and  the  sudden  change  from  a  tropic  African  climate  to  a 
bleak  Northern  temperature.  The  United  States  Dept.  Marshall  for 
that  New  York  district  reported  in  1856  that  "the  business  of 
fitting  out  slavers  was  never  prosecuted  with  greater  energy  than  at 
present."  In  a  year  and  a  half  preceding  the  War  Between  the 
States  eighty-five  slave  trading  vessels  are  reported  as  fitting  out 
in  New  York  harbor  and  DuBois  writes  that,  "from  1850  to  1860 
the  fitting  out  of  slavers  became  a  flourishing  business  in  the 
United  States  and  centered  in  Xew  York  City." 

14 


Although  Massachusetts  and  Xew  York  were  thus  prominent  in 
the  business  of  enslaving  and  importing  Africans  and  selling  them 
lo  Smith  America  and  the  Southern  colonies.,  and  later  the  Southern 
states  in  the  Union,  other  parts  of  Xew  England  took  most  promi 
nent  part  in  the  slave  trade.  Indeed.,  in  the  "Reminiscenses  of 
Samuel  Hopkins,"  Ehode  Island  is  said  to  have  been  "more  deeply 
interested  in  the  slave  trade  than  any  other  colony  in  Xew  England 
and  has  enslaved  more  Africans." 

Thus  beginning  with  that  first  slave  ship  of  this  country,  the 
"Desire"  of  Marblehead,  Mass.,  the  slave  trade  flourished  in  New 
England  and  Xew  York.  The  favorite  method  was  to  exchange 
rum  for  negroes  and  to  sell  the  negroes  to  the  Southern  plantations. 
Federal  laws  were  powerless  to  hold  in  check  the  keenness  for  this 
profitable  traffic  in  human  flesh.  As  late  as  1850,  the  noted  slave 
smuggler,  Drake,  who  flourished  and  operated  along  the  Gulf  Coast, 
is  reported  to  have  said,  "Slave  trading  is  growing  more  profitable 
every  year,  and  if  you  should  hang  all  the  Yankee  merchants  en 
gaged  in  it,  hundreds  more  would  take  their  places." 

The  outlawing  of  the  traffic  seemed  but  to  stimulate  it.  From 
the  very  inception  of  the  institution  of  slavery  in  this  country  there 
was  protest  and  action  against  it  throughout  the  Southern  colonies. 
The  vigorous  action  of  Virginia  and  her  protests  to  the  royal  gov 
ernment  to  prohibit  the  further  importation  of  slaves  to  her  terri 
tory  are  well  known.  We  have  seen  how  Jefferson  introduced  into 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  a  protest  against  the  slave  trade 
which  he  withdrew  at  the  behest  of  Xew  England.  Every  promi 
nent  man  in  Virginia  at  this  period  was  in  favor  of  gradual  emanci 
pation  and  there  were  more  than  five  times  as  many  members  of 
abolition  societies  in  the  South  than  in  the  North.  Only  with  the 
rise  of  the  rabid  abolitionists  of  Xew  England  and  their  fierce  de 
nunciations  of  the  South  did  the  South  abandon  hope  of  gradual 
emancipation.  Touching  this,  Mr.  Cecil  Chesterman,  quoted  above, 
states  very  pointedly  in  his  "History  of  the  United  States,"  "what 
could  exceed  the  effrontery  of  men,"  asked  the  Southerner,  "who 
reproach  us  with  grave  personal  sin  in  owning  property  which  they 
themslves  sold  us  and  the  price  of  which  is  at  this  moment  in  their 
pockets?"  Virginia  legislated  against  slavery  over  a  score  of  times ; 
South  Carolina  protested  against  it  as  early  as  1727,  and  in  Georgia 
there  was  absolute  prohibition  of  it  by  law.  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  when  the  Xational  Government  took  action  and  the  slavery 
prohibition  laws  of  Congress  went  into  effect  in  1808,  every  South 
ern  state  had  prohibited  it. 

But,  as  stated,  the  outlawing  of  the  traffic  seemed  but  to  stimulate 
it.  In  the  earlier  years  of  the  19th  century  thousands  of  slaves 
were  imported  into  this  country.  In  the  year  1819,  Gen.  James 
Talmadge,  speaking  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  declared :  "It 
is  a  well  known  fact  that  about  14,000  slaves  have  been  brought  into 
our  country  this  year."  And  Sergeant,  of  Pennsylvania,  said:  "It 

15 


is  notorious  that  in  spite  of  the  utmost  vigilance  that  can  be  em 
ployed,  African  negroes  are  clandestinely  brought  in  and  sold  as 
slaves." 

This  "vigilance"  he  speaks  of,  however,  was  much  ridiculed  by 
others,  and  it  was  openly  hinted  that  the  efforts  of  the  Federal 
authorities  to  suppress  the  trade,  even  the  look-out  for  slavers  along 
the  African  coast  as  conducted  by  vessels  of  the  United  States  Navy, 
were  merely  perfunctory,  Blake  in  his  "History  of  Slavery  and  the 
Slave  Trade/'  published  in  1857,  says:  "It  is  stated  upon  good 
authority  that  in  1844  more  slaves  were  carried  away  from  Africa 
in  ships  than  in  1744  when  the  trade  was  legal  and  in  full  vigor;" 
while  in  the  year  immediately  preceding  the  opening  of  the  War 
Between  the  States,  John  C.  Underwood  is  quoted  as  writing  to  the 
NTew  York  Tribune :  "I  have  ample  evidence  of  the  fact  that  the 
reopening  of  the  African  slave  trade  is  an  accomplished  fact  and 
the  traffic  is  brisk."  Xot  only  was  the  traffic  brisk  with  the  United 
States  but  thousands  of  slaves  were  being  smuggled  into  Brazil. 

Southern  members  of  Congress  complained  of  the  violations  of 
the  law  and  the  illegal  importation  of  slaves  into  their  territory. 
Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  said  on  the  floor  of  Congress  in  1819  : 
"Our  Northern  friends  are  not  afraid  to  furnish  the  Southern 
States  with  Africans;"  and  in  1819,  Middleton,  of  South  Carolina, 
and  Wright,  of  Virginia,  estimated  the  illicit  introduction  of 
slaves  at  from  1300  to  1500  respectively. 

There  is  interest  in  the  striking  fact  that  one  year  before  the 
outbreak  of  the  War  Between  the  States,  and  at  the  time  when  the 
rabid  abolitionists  of  New  England  and  the  North  were  most  vigor 
ous  in  their  denunciations  of  the  South  and  the  slave  holders,  there 
were  in  Massachusetts  only  9000  free  negroes,  while  in  Virginia 
there  were  53,000  of  these  negroes,  free,  and  able  to  go  where  they 
pleased  ;  and  it  is  significant  that  about  as  many  free  negroes  chose 
to  live  in  Southern  slave  holding  states  as  dwelt  in  Northern  states; 
and  many  of  these  free  negroes  owned  slaves  themselves  and  were 
well-to-do  citizens.  In  the  city  of  Charleston,  S.  C.,  some  three 
hundred  free  negroes  owned  slaves  themselves. 

In  closing  this  article  the  following  letter,  which  appeared  in  the 
columns  of  the  New  Orleans  Picayune  years  ago,  may  be  of  in 
terest  : 

"My  father,  Capt.  John  Julius  Guthrie,  then  of  the  United  States  Navy, 
while  executive  officer  of  the  sloop  of  war  "Saratoga"  on  April  21st,  1861, 
captured  at  the  mouth  of  the  Congo  River,  on  the  west  coast  of  Africa, 
the  slave  ship  'Nightingale'  with  900  slaves  aboard.  The  slaver  was 
owned,  manned  and  equipped  in  the  city  of  Boston,  Mass.,  and  in  refer 
ence  to  the  date  it  will  appear  that  her  capture  was  after  the  assault  on 
Fort  Sumter  and  the  Baltimore  riot  consequent  upon  the  passage  of  the 
6th  Massachusetts  Regiment  through  the  city.  This  was  the  last  slaver 
caputred  by  an  American  war  ship  and  as  my  father  soon  after  resigned 
and  went  in  to  the  Confederate  service,  her  captain  and  owners  were  never 
brought  to  trial.  All  this  is  a  matter  of  record  on  file  at  the  Navy  Depart- 

16 


incut  in  Washington.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  last  capture  of  a 
slaver  was  by  a  Southern  officer  and  the  good  people  of  Massachusetts 
were  ngapiul  in  this  nefarious  -business  at  the  beginning  of  our  unhappy 
war." 

(Signed  i  J.  Julius  Guthrie, 

Portsmouth,  Va. 

Too  long  has  the  South  had  the  odium  of  slavery  forced  upon  her. 
With  the  institution  thrust  upon  her  against  her  protest,  the  slaves 
flourished  in  her  boundaries  on  account  of  climate,  and  economic 
conditions  favored  the  spread  of  the  institution  itself.  The  facts 
set  forth  above  indicate  the  innocence  of  the  South  in  foisting  this 
feature  upon  our  national  life,  as  well  as  her  freedom  from  guilt  in 
the  continued  importation  of  slaves  into  this  country.  While  no 
claim  is  made  for  special  virtue  in  that  the  South  did  not  engage 
in  the  slave  importing  business  as  the  North  did,  yet  the  facts  as 
they  exist  are  to  her  credit.  With  the  facts  in  her  favor,  the  South 
sits  still  under  the  false  indictments  constantly  made  against  her  by 
the  section  of  our  country  most  responsible  for  the  whole  trouble. 
Willing  to  abide  by  the  verdict  of  posterity,  if  the  verdict  is  based 
ujK.n  the  truth,  and  not  upon  the  false  statements  of  Northern  his 
torians,  writers  and  speakers,  and  willing  to  accept  her  share,  her 
full  share  of  due  responsibility,  this  section,  in  justice  to  her  dead 
who  died  gloriously  in  a  maligned  cause,  and  to  her  unborn  chil 
dren,  inheritors  of  a  glorious  heritage,  must  set  forth  to  the  world 
the  facts  as  they  are,  neither  tainted  with  injustice  to  others  nor 
burdened  with  hypocritical  claims  of  righteousness  for  herself;  and 
these  facts  will  establish  her  in  the  proud  position  to  which  she  has 
all  along  been  entitled  among  the  people  of  the  earth. 


17 


Treatment  of  Prisoners  in  the 
Confederacy 

By  Matthew  Page  Andrews 
Author  of  History  of  the  United  States,  Dixie  Book  of  Days,  &c,  &c. 

Only  a  generation  ago,  Eaphael  Semmes,  commander  of  the  Con 
federate  warship  Alabama,  was  widely  advertised  as  a  "pirate"  and 
Robert  E.  Lee  was  stigmatized  as  a  "traitor."  Thousands  of  young 
Americans  were  taught  so  to  regard  these  Southern  leaders.  Xow, 
however,  these  terms  are  nearly  obsolete;  while  many  Northern  his 
torians,  such  as  Charles  Francis  Adams,  who  fought  on  the  Federal 
side  in  the  War  of  Secession,  and  Gamaliel  Bradford,  who  grew 
up  after  the  war,  have  delighted  in  honoring  Lee  and  other  South 
ern  leaders  as  Americans  whose  character  and  achievements  are  the 
ennobling  heritage  of  a  united  ISTation. 

It  was  more  or  less  natural  that  Americans  should  have  been  led 
astray  of  the  truth  in  the  heat  of  sectional  strife  and  partisan  ex 
pression.  Misconceptions  have  arisen  out  of  every  war.  Tn  fifty 
years,  however,  Americans  have  made  greater  progress  in  overcom 
ing  war  prejudices  than  the  people  of  other  lands  in  twice  or  thrice 
that  period. 

This  is  encouraging,  yet  the  fact  that  the  greater  number  of  our 
textbooks,  and  consequently  our  schools,  teach  that  "the  cause  for 
which  the  South  fought  was  unworthy ;"  that  the  Southern  leaders 
"were  laboring  under  some  of  the  most  curious  hallucinations  which 
a  student  of  history  meets  in  the  whole  course  of  his  researches;" 
and  that  "the  South  was  the  champion  of  the  detested  institution  of 
slavery,"  indicates  a  lamentable  state  of  historical  ignorance 
on  the  part  of  those  who  should  know  better.  The  characters  of  the 
Southern  leaders  are  no  longer  aspersed  but  their  motives  are  be- 
smirrlied  or  clouded  and  their  cause  unjustly  condemned  because  it 
is  still  widely  misunderstood.* 

Furthermore,  since  the  beginning  of  the  World  War  of  1914,  the 
conduct  of  the  Prussians,  together  with  the  character  of  their  cause, 
lias  been  compared  with  the  character  of  the  Confederate  conduct 
of  the  War  of  Secession,  together  with  the  cause  and  character  of 
Southern  statesmen.  Reputable  magazines  of  wide  circulation  and 
writers  of  prominence  have  compared  Confederate  treatment  of 
prisoners  with  Prussian  outrages  in  Belgium  and  France.  Ameri 
can  newspapers  also  have  printed  literally  thousands  of  such  com 
parative  references.  Fortunately,  nine-tenths  of  these  comparisons 

^Incredible  as  it  may  seem,  these  quotations  are  taken  from  three  of  the 
most  widely  used  history  text-books  in  America  at  the  present  time.  They 
have  been  written  by  men  honored  with  high  positions  in  the  teaching 
profession. 

18 


have  him  made  through  ignorance  of  the  facts  and  not  through  any 
malicious  desire  of  the  authors  to  defame  the  fair  name  of  a  single 
fellow- American  on  the  Confederate  side  or  the  "lost  cause"  which 
he  represented  with  unsurpassed  devotion  and  valor. 

Side  by  side  with  these  accusations,  in  some  cases,  generous  praise 
is  bestowed  upon  the  former  "pirate"  Semmes  as  having  furnished 
a  model  for  warfare  on  the  high  seas;  and  it  is  freely  stated  that 
his  observance  of  all  the  requirements  of  international  custom  and 
of  the  dictates  of  humanity  in  civilized  warfare  held  not  only  to  the 
letter,  but  also  to  the  full  spirit  of  the  law.  It  is  not  denied,  also, 
that  Lee,  the  Confederate  chieftain  and  quondam  "traitor"  has 
offered  the  world  the  noblest  example  of  orders  of  conduct  for  an 
army  in  the  enemy's  country  that  all  history  can  show,  and  that 
these  orders  were  also  carried  out  "even  to  the  protection  of  a 
farmer's  fence  rails  I"  The  Boston  Transcript,  for  example,  took 
occasion,  in  1917,  to  publish  these  orders  in  full. 

Nevertheless,  in  regard  to  the  treatment  of  prisoners,  the  sweep 
ing  condemnation  of  James  G.  Elaine,  delivered  in  an  outburst  of 
war-inspired  and  partisan  condemnation  of  the  South  is  still,  in  a 
general  way,  believed  by  Americans  who  have,  of  late,  been  echoing 
them,  although  in  milder  terms  and  in  limitation  of  the  number  of 
those  held  to  have  been  guilty.  Mr.  Elaine  declared  some  ten  years 
after  the  war:  "Mr.  Davis  [President  of  the  Confederate  States] 
was  the  author,  knowingly,  deliberately,  guiltily,  and  willfully,  of 
the  gigantic  murder  and  crime  at  Andersonville.  And  I  here,  before 
God  measuring  my  words,  knowiiuj  /lieir  full  extent  and  int/tort 
declare  that  neither  the  deeds  of  the  Duke  of  Alva  in  the  low 
countries,  nor  the  massacre  of  Saint  Bartholomew,  nor  the  thumb 
screws  and  engines  of  torture  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  begin  to 
compare  in  atrocity  with  the  hideous  crimes  of  Andersonville." 

Historians  do  not  now  accept  this  statement  as  true,  solemnly 
made  as  it  was  by  a  man  who,  a  few  years  later,  barely  missed  elec 
tion  to  the  highest  office  in  the  gift  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  Furthermore,  American  historians,  even  if  inclined  to  bias, 
do  not  now  go  into  any  detail  in  the  matter  of  these  charges.  They 
refer  the  reader,  however,  to  a  mass  of  matter  the  major  part  of 
which  is  as  false  today  as  when  James  G.  Elaine  based  upon  it  his 
colossal  libel  of  Jefferson  Davis  and  the  military  and  civil  authori 
ties  of  the  Southern  Confederacy.  As  above  stated,  the  so-called 
"general"  historian  has  dropped  this  matter  in  detail,  though  Mr. 
Elaine  exclaimed  dramatically  that  it  would  remain  as  the  "blackest 
page"  recorded  in  the  annals  of  all  time.*  On  the  other  hand, 
*  James  Ford  Rhodes,  for  example.  (Vol.  V.  pp.  483-515)  has  done  better 
than  his  contemporaries  in  this  respect:  and  the  Photographic  History  of 
the  Civil  War  presents  an  even  more  extended  review.  Elsewhere.  Rhodes 
draws  what  one  may  cnll  the  "significantly  provincial  and  incomplete"  con 
clusion,  (Vol.  VI.  p.  29.  italics  inserted):  'Now  that  the  Southern  people 
were  rid  of  the  incubus  of  slavery  their  moral  standards  were  the  same  as 
those  at  the  North :  and  they  felt  that  they  were  amenable  to  the  public 
opinion  of  the  enlightened  world." 

19 


in  numerable  monographs  have  been  written  upon  this  subject,  four- 
iifths  of  which  are  cither  false  per  se,  or  else  based  on  false  evidence 
such  as  that  which  has  misled  so  many  Americans,  from  the  time  of 
James  G.  Elaine  and  contemporary  historians,,  to  editors  of  and 
writers  in  magazines  and  newspapers  of  the  second  decade  in  the 
twentieth  century.  With  this  one  notable  exception,  American  his 
tory  is  rapidly  freeing  its  narrative  of  misconception  in  all  of  its 
phases.  It  is  here  that  we  now  find  the  last  great  stronghold  of  sec 
tional  misconception. 

It'  four-fifths  of  the  monographs  on  prison  life  in  the  South  are 
false  per  se,  or  based  on  false  evidence,  it  follows  that  one-fifth  are 
true  or  approximately  so.  The  writer  has  had  the  privilege  of 
knowing  personally  a  distinguished  Union  Veteran  who  suffered 
privations  and  hardships  at  Libby  Prison.  Published  in  1912,  his 
story,  as  it  affects  his  personal  experiences,  is  doubtless  true  in  every 
respect;  yet  this  same  good  American  helped  to  publish  simultan 
eously  another  volume  by  one  of  his  comrades  that  is  a  tissue  of 
falsehood  and  slander  from  beginning  to  end.  The  veracious  author 
seemed  to  take  his  mendacious  comrade  at  his  face  value,  and  he 
advertised  as  worthy  history  a  gross  historical  libel.* 

Again  with  reference  to  a  portion  of  the  truthful  fifth  part  of 
the  testimony  in  monographs  or  special  articles,  it  should  be  said 
that  a  concerted  attempt  has  apparently  been  made  by  certain  in- 
terestd  individuals  and  groups  to  cry  down,  suppress,  or  defame  the 
authors  of  these  monographs.  The  average  good  American  citizen, 
who  likes  to  believe  that  the  people  of  one  section  "about  average 
up  to"  the  people  of  another,  is  moved  to  amazement  at  the  extreme 
violence  of  the  attacks  made  upon  men  who,  on  this  one  subject, 
would  say  even  the  least  in  defense  of  their  former  opponents. 
"God  knows  we  suffered  there,"  said  one  of  the  ex-prisoners  of  An- 

*This  viciously  false  volume  revives  the  following  post-bellum  slander 
on  the  officers  in  Forrest's  command  at  Fort  Pillow:  "The  rebels  began 
an  indiscriminate  slaughter,  sparing  neither  age  nor  sex.  white  nor  black, 
soldier  nor  civilian.  The  officers  and  men  seemed  to  vie  with  each  other 
in  the  work;  men,  women,  and  even  children  were  deliberately  shot  down, 
beaten  and  hacked  with  sabres.  Some  of  the  children,  not  more  than  ten 
years  old,  were  forced  to  stand  and  face  their  murderers  while  being  shot: 
the  sick  and  wounded  were  butchered  without  mercy,  the  rebels  entering 
the  hospital  and  dragging  them  out  to  be  shot,  or  killing  them  as  they  lay 
unable  to  offer  resistance.  Numbers  of  our  men  were  collected  in  lines  or 
groups  and  deliberately  shot;  some  were  shot  in  the  river:  some  on  the 
bank,  and  the  bodies  of  the  latter,  many  yet  living,  were  kicked  into  the 
river.  The  huts  and  tents  where  the  wounded  had  sought  shelter  were  set 
on  fire,  both  that  night  and  the  next  morning,  while  the  wounded  were 
still  in  them,  and  those  who  tried  to  get  out  were  shot.  One  man  was 
fastened  to  the  floor  of  a  tent  by  nails  through  his  clothing  and  then 
burned,  and  one  was  similarly  nailed  to  the  side  of  a  building  and  then 
uurned.  These  deeds  were  renewed  the  next  morning  when  any  wonnd<"l 
who  still  lived  were  sought  out  and  shot." 

• 

20 


dersoii\  illr,  "hut  we  found  out  that  the  Confederate  soldier  had  our 
fare  and  often  less,  and  he  was  often  as  shoeless  as  we,  in  time,  he- 
came.  \Ve  were  the  worse  oil'  chiefly  hecause  of  enforced  confine 
ment,  hope  deferred,  and  longing  for  home  and  freedom."  Men  who 
have  made  such  statements  as  these  or  who  have  defended  their 
former  captors  and  fellow-countrymen  from  the  charge  of  deliberate 
cruelty,  have  been  bitterly  attacked  in  (Jrand  Armv  Posts — not  bv 
men  of  similar  liberal  ideals,  but  by  narrow-minded  men  who  were 
otherwise  good  citi/ens  and  by  bounty-jumpers  and  deserters  who 
made  it  their  business  to  fan  the  flames  of  sectional  passion  so  that 
the  public  would  continue  to  support  them  in  the  way  which  has 
been  exposed  by  ( 'harles  Francis  Adams.  Tn  some  cases,  the  thought 
of  all  this  false  testimony  weighed  like  a  heavy  load  upon  the  con 
sciences  of  patriotic  Union  Veterans  who  loved  their  whole  country 
and  honored  their  former  Confederate  foes  as  opponents  worthy 
of  their  steel.  One  of  these  men  who  was  thus  moved  to  write  what 
he  held  to  be  true  had  long  looked  forward  to  the  honor  of  com 
manding  his  Department  of  the  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic.  His 
published  narrative  defending  the  motives  of  his  former  captors 
cost  him  this  honor,  even  though  it  contained  no  single  word  or 
phrase  that  reflected  unfavorably  upon  the  cause  of  the  Xorth.  An 
historian  who  undertook  to  inquire  about  the  veracity  of  the  narra 
tive  was  told  by  well-meaning  men  across  the  Continent  from  the 
author  that  ''the  book  was  untrustworthy"  and  that  the  author  was 
unreliable.  A  quiet  and  careful  investigation  was.  however,  made 
by  him  into  the  character  and  career  of  the  "witness/'  and  the  favor 
able  testimony  of  those  in  a  position  to  know  him  best  in  all  his 
relations  led  the  historian  to  place  the  greatest  confidence  in  his 
testimony.* 

The  charges  preferred  against  the  authorities  of  the  Confederacy 
were,  for  several  years,  made  the  most  important  subject  under  con 
sideration  by  the  people  and  even  the  government  of  the  United 
States.  During  that  period,  the  magnitude  and  violence  of  the  ac- 

*The  historian  corresponded  with  this  Veteran's  friends  and  acquaint 
ances  and  interviewed  others.  One  of  them,  a  well-known  and  honored 
•  Indite  wrote.  May  7.  1017:  "Shortly  after  the  publication  of  his  hook  the 

Grand   Army   of   the    Republic   iret    at       and    considerable   feeling 

was  expressed  by  .  .  .  . 's  comrades  there.  Some  disagreed  with  him 
radically  and  the  feeling  against  him  was  so  intense  that  it  prevented 
his  election  as  Department  Commander.  He  certainly  would  have  been 
elected  unanimously  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  publication  of  his  look.  At 

the  time   T   was   holding   Court    in      ....      instead   of   Judge 

the  resident  Judge  there,  and  remember  talking  with  ....  after  the 
election.  He  said  he  regretted  that  his  comrades  took  the  attitude  they  did 
but  nevertheless  he  had  not  stated  anything  but  the  truth  in  his  book  and 
if  it  had  cost  him  one  of  his  life's  ambitions  he  could  only  regret  the 
misguided  attitude  of  his  fellows,  but  he  did  not  regret  doing  justice  to  a 
man  to  whom  he  thought  grave  injustice  had  been  done."  [In  the  above 
quotation,  names  of  individuals  are  not  given  for  fear  of  causing  bitter 
attacks  by  partisans  on  others.  All  names  and  correspondence  are  on  Hie 
and  may  be  published  later.] 

21 


cusations  obscured  much  more  weighty  and  serious  problems  and 
placed  the  South  on  the  defensive.  I  HTM  use  it  was  not  the  better 
» -I finent  in  the  Xorth  but  the  radical  and  partisan  minority  that 
had,  for  the  moment,  the  ear  of  the  country  and  the  world.  Secre 
tary  Stanton  used  the  following  language  in  one  of  the  official 
reports  of  the  Federal  Government:  "The  enormity  of  the  crime 
committed  by  the  Rebels  towards  our  prisoners  for  the  last  several 
months  is  hot  known  or  realized  by  our  people,  and  cannot  but  fill 
with  horror  the  civilized  world  when  the  facts  are  fully  revealed. 
There  appears  to  have  been  n  deliberate  system  of  *<ira</e  and  bar 
barous  treatment  and  starralum.  the  result  of  which  will  be  that 
few,  (if  any)  of  the  prisoners  that  have  been  in  their  hands  during 
the  past  winter  will  ever  again  be  in  a  condition  to  render  any  ser 
vice,  or  even  to  enjoy  life."  At  the  same  time,  the  United  States 
Sanitary  Commission  declared  that:  "The  evidence  proves,  beyond 
all  manner  of  doubt,  a  determination  on  tlie  part  of  Hie  Rebel 
authorities,  deliberately  and  persistently  practiced  for  a  long  time 
past,  to  subject  those  of  our  soldiers  who  have  been  so  unfortunate 
as  to  fall  into  their  hands  to  a  system  of  treatment  which  has  re-~ 
sulted  in  reducing  many  of  those  who  have  survived  and  been  per 
mitted  to  return  to  us  to  a  condition,  both  physically  and  mentally, 

which  no  language  \ve  can  use  can  adequately  describe 

The  conclusion  is  unavoidable,  therefore,  that  these  privations  and 
sufferings  hare  been  <lesi<jn<'<ll  ij  inflicted  by  the  milifari/  and  oilier 
authorities  of  Ihe  Hehel  (torernnienl ,  and  could  not  bare  liecn  <lue 
to  rv/7/AY'x  irln'ch  such  authorities  could  not  control." 

A  widely  circulated  volume  by  a  former  prisoner  at  Andersonville, 
the  largest  of  the  Confederate  prison  camps,  contains  the  following 
statement:  ^Inside  of  this  inclosure,  thirteen  thousand,  two  hun 
dred  and  fifty-three  Fnion  soldiers  perished.  There  is  no  spot  on 
the  face  of  the  earth  where  man's  inhumanity  to  man  was  more 
fully  demonstrated  than  in  this  terrible  place,  and  the  name  of 
Andersonville  will  be  a  dark  spot  on  American  civilization  for 
centuries  to  come.  .  .  .  To  Jefferson  Davis,  his  cabinet  ad 
visers,  and  to  the  demons  whom  they  sent  to  these  prisons  to  carry 
out  their  devilish  plans,  and  who  appear  to  have  been  well  adapted 
for  that  kind  of  work,  belongs  the  infamy  of  perpetrating  one  of 
the  most  horrible  crimes  known  in  the  history  of  the  world,  and  one 
which  will  forever  remain  a  blot  and  a  stigma  on  that  page  of  our 
country's  history.  .  .  .  And  in  all  the  Southern  prisons,  as 
near  as  could  be  ascertained,  about  05,000  men  fell  victims  to  rebel 
barbarity.  Who  can  doubt  but  that  it  was  a  fairly  concocted  scheme 
of  their  captors  to  destroy  them,  and  flint,  too,  in  the  most  horrible 
niimner." 

^n  he  official  Report  of  the  Committee  in  Congress  on  the  conduct 
of  the  war  contains  the  following  statement:  "The  subsequent 
history  of  Andersonville  has  startled  and  shocked  the  world  with 
a  tale  of  horror,  of  woe,  and  death  before  unheard  and  unknown 

22 


to  civilization.  No  pen  can  describe,  no  painter  sketch,  no  imagi 
nation  cnmpivli(.'ii<l  its  fearful  and  unutterable  ini<|iiitv.  It  would 
seem  that  the  concentrated  madness  of  earth  and  hell  had  found 
its  final  lodgment  in  flic  breasts  of  those  ivho  inaugurated  the  Re 
lic/  /ion  a  ml  controlled  I  lie  }>olici/  of  f/ie  Con  f  <><!<'  ml  c  t/orc.rn  merit, 
and  that  flu1  /irixon  <il  An<h>r.*«>nrill<>  had  been  selected  for  the  most 
terrible  human  sacrifice  which  the  world  had  ever  seetfT/  Into  its 
narrow  walls  were  crowded  thirty-five  thousand  men,  many  of  them 
the  bravest  and  best,  the  most  devoted  and  heroic  of  those  grand 
armies  which  carried  the  flag  of  their  country  to  final  victory.  For 
long  and  weary  months  here  they  suffered,  maddened,  were  mur 
dered  and  died  .  .  .  these  men,  these  heroes,  born  in  the  image 
of  God,  thus  crouching  and  writhing  in  their  terrible  torture  and 
ml  <-nl  a  I  ing  barbarity,  stand  forth  in  history  as  a  monument  of  the 
surpassing  horrors  of  Andersonville  as  it  shall  be  seen  and  read  in 
all  future  time,  realizing  in  the  studied  torments  of^heir  prison 
house  the  ideal  of  Dante's  Inferno  and  Milton's  Hell."/ 

Those  historians  who  have  at  all  investigated  the~nmter  regard 
such  statements  as  partisan  and  untrue  ;  but  many  historical  writers 
who  have  not  so  investigated  perpetuate  in  modified  form,  these 
same  falsehoods.  When,  for  instance,  so  great  a  periodical  as  Col 
lier's  Weekly  descends  to  such  sectionalism,  it  does  so  in  ignorance 
and  not  in  malice.  For  this  reason,  perhaps,  any  such  injustice  as 
the  following  is  more  to  be  deplored.  In  its  issue  of  February  17, 
1917,  the  leading  editorial  article  is  entitled  "The  Morals  of 
Slavery''  in  which  a  resume  is  given  of  Prussian  outrages  in  Bel 
gium  under  Yon  Bissing.  The  writer,  who  may  have  been  an 
occasional  contributor  of  national  and  international  prominence, 
draws  the  following  comparison,  italics  inserted: 

"The  only  prototype  that  the  history  of  our  own  country  affords 
for  General  Von  Bissing  is  Captain  Henry  Wirz,  commanding  offi 
cer  of  Andersonville  prison.  ^He  pleaded  'military  and  economic 
necessity'  as  an  excuse  for  liis  acts,  and  in  a  general  way  defended 
///.v  rniclfics  with  the  same  arguments  that  have  been  advanced  by 
the  German  Government  in  defending  the  invasion  of  Belgium,  the 
shooting  of  hostages,  and  the  merciless  exploitation  of  the  labor  and 
resources  of  the  country.  He  acted  under  orders;  he  did  only  what 
conditions  compelled  him  to  do~  llis  flefensewas  suprem^yTJogical 
to  mind*  Hint  Jitnl  yroirn  tolerant  of  the  fmrsfin&SS  of  irnr.  But  even 
at  a  time  when  leniency  'was  exercisetTin  the  treatment  of  spies, 
blockade  runners,  privateersmen,  and  freebooters,  the  Union  Gov 
ernment  drew  the  line  at  AVirz's  offenses.  The  s 


Jried  in  1865  byajrnlitary  commission"  ancrpronrptiyliangecr!  It 
IT^hisJcreiLrlTHt  he  did  not  attempt  to  jusifv  his  cruelty  to  the 
prisoners  by  phwTmg  his  intention  of  improvmg~their  morals." 

Collier's  Weekly  is,  perhaps,  the  most  popular  of  the  publica 
tions  that  reprinted,  with  variations,  an  ancient  error.  The  history 
of  the  historical  statement  of  the  prison  charges  runs  from  the 


23 


early  "conviction  of  direct  complicity"  <>n  the  part  of  (iH_ili&_rj  r  1  1 
and  military  autliorities  of  the  Confederacy,  to  .thejifdirect  charge 
"against  them  1  1  1  n  >  u  glfl  1apta  iii~~TV  i  rz,  a  poor  subordinate  of  Swi 
hirth^j\vho  was  one  of  the  commandants  at  the  Anderson\  ille  prison. 
C^TThn  "iiTs^ccusersTiiin«i-(Ml  after  the  most  uiiJusfTrial  that  this  coun 
try  has  ever  known.}  As  late  as  1!)l?;the  distinguished  editor  of 
"American  State  'Mais"  and  the  Vice-President  of  the  Inter 
national  Law  Association  was  so  far  led  astray  hy  the  "'evidence'' 
as  to  prepare  a  preface  to  the  volume,  irltirh  ira*  x<</>/ir<tl<'/i/  />rinted 
tun/  circulated,  approving  the  chaises  hrought  against  Wirz  as  pro 
perly  substantiated^ 

It  is  recognized  hy  all  who  have  carefully  investigated  the  prison 
question  that  the  civil  and  military  Committees  and  Commissions 
appointed  under  strongly  partisan  auspices  to  look  into  the  prison 
question  rendered  reports  that  are  now  known  to  he  false.  Shortly 
afterwards.  Southern  officials,  hampered  as  they  were  at  that  time, 
made  replies  to  these  accusations  and  published  some  of  them. 
These  replies  of  the  Southern  officials  contend: 

(1)  That  although   it  is  not  denied  that  there  was  terrible  suf 
fering  and  great  mortality  in  Confederate  prisons,  this  was  due  to 
circumstances  hcyond  their  control. 

(2)  That  if  the  death   rate  he  adduced  as  "circumstantial   evi 
dence  of  harharity."   the   rate  was  as  high  or  even   higher   in   the 
majority  of  the  prisons  in  the  Xorth,  where  there  was  an  abundance 
of  food  and  where  shelter  could  easily  be  provided.** 

*It  must  be  remembered  that  this  subordinate  officer  was  convicted  of 
<-<>nx/)iiiii</  irilli  Confederate  authorities  in  the  crimes  alleged  to  have  been 
committed. 

•"The  Confederate  prisoners,  including  the  three  thousand  ollicers  con 
fined  at  .Johnson's  Island  suffered  terrible  tortures  from  both  cold  and 
hunger.  Their  rations  were,  by  order  of  the  Federal  autliorities,  cut  down 
to  a  daily  portion  of  one-half  a  loaf  of  hard  bread,  and  a  small  piece  of 
salt  pork,  which  was  served  at  noon.  At  Fort  Delaware,  in  the  summer 
of  1864.  the  rations  were  reduced  to  two  crackers,  together  with  an  inch 
square  of  pickled  meat  and  a  cup  of  weak  coffee.  The  only  other  meal  of 
the  day  consisted  of  two  crackers  with  a  cup  of  very  weak  bean  soup.  (  ><•- 
casionally  a  quarter  of  a  loaf  of  light  bread  was  substituted  for  the  crackers. 
The  crackers  were  o.ten  filled  with  worms,  which  many  of  the  prisoners 
ate  with  a  view  to  sustaining  life.  In  the  coldest  weather  two  bushels 
of  coal  a  day  were  allowed  each  "barracks"  of  320  men.  This  supply  of 
fuel  lasted  but  a  portion  of  the  twenty-four  hours.  Ibj^pJUuL^^x-Leg, 
d_fVt  tl'  '^  ^jvrjj^)u--j4Ti*-L  ninny  of  the  men  preferred  to_siiilgr  and  die 
friends  in  the  "laersX-a^^rrrerirnoscd  hard  lank~~btiifk*i. 


2? 

erates  died  in  Northern  prisons.  Each  man  was  allowed  one  blanket  or 
an  overcoat.  Prisoners  could  not  have  both.  They  were  deprived  of  money 
and  allowed  a  limited  amount  of  sutler's  checks  with  which  they  could 
buy  tobacco,  etc.,  but  no  additional  food.  The  dead,  with  their  bodies 
stripped  of  clothing,  were  thrown  into  long  ditches:  so  that  years  after 
wards  a  Committee  authori/ed  by  Congress  could  not  determine  the  dead 
or  put  up  tombstones. 

On   the   other   hand,    it    is   good   to    record    that    Confederate   ex-prisoners 
themselves,   out   of   their   poverty,   erected   a    memorial   to   Colonel    Richard 

24, 


(:>)  That  in  the  South  the  same  rations  were  given  the  prisoners 
and  the  guards  ;  hut  that  variety  in  food  could  not  he  had  or  trans 
ported  on  the  hroken-down  railway  system  of  a  Don-manufacturing 
eoimtrv,  which  svsteni  could  not  or  did  not  provide  sufficient  clothes 
and  food  even  for  the  Confederate  soldiers  in  the  field.* 

(I)  That  the  Confederacy  had  arranged  for  the  exchange  of 
prisoners  hv  a  special  cartel,  which  cartel  was  deliberately  disre 
garded  liv  the  Federal  authorities.** 

(.">)  That  they  offered  to  permit  Federal  Surgeons  to  bring  medi 
cal  supplies  to  the  prisoners,  which  offer  was  not  accepted. 

( <i  >  That,  as  the  needs  of  the  prisoners  increased,  they  offered  to 
huy  (finally  with  cotton  or  with  gold)  supplies  for  the  prisoners, 
which  oiler  was  ignored. 

Owen,  commandant  at  C'anip  Morton,  Indiana.  This  noble  man  did  all  he 
could  to  mitigate  the  hardships  of  prison  life,  and  scores  of  Confederate 
prisoners  confined  there  and  transferred  to  other  prisons  have  borne  pa 
thetic  testimony  to  his  allowance  of  both  overcoats  and  blankets  (two). 
The  rations  were  limited  under  conditions  beyond  the  control  of  Colonel 
Owen,  but  these  were  "mercifully  changed"  in  order  to  prevent  the  ravages 
of  scurvy. 

The  point  as  to  raricfi/  in  food  is  very  important:  for  the  lack  of  a 
wholesome  variety  caused  certain  diseases  among  the  prisoners  not  suffered 
by  the  guards  and  Confederate  soldiers  fed  on  the  same  rations.  The 
forirer.  for  example,  could  not,  in  many  cases,  eat  the  unbolted  meal  to 
which  the  Southerner  was  accustomed.  This  was  particularly  true  of  the 
great  number  of  German  and  other  prisoners  of  foreign  birth,  of  whom 
there  were  many  thousands  in  the  Southern  prisons.  The  tirst  group  of 
prisoners  sent  to  Andersonville  were  several  hundred  foreigners.  A  large 
number  of  these  foreigners  and  many  native  Americans  from  the  Northern 
Stat'-s  con  Hi  not  at  first  eat  this  unbolted  meal  without  experiencing  more 
or  less  serious  digestive  trouble  which  left  them  in  a  dangerously  weakened 
condition.  Towards  the  close  of  the  war  a  trainload  of  Federal  prisoners 
northward  bound  halted  by  the  side  of  another  train  returning  Confederate 
prisoners  to  the  South.  'I  lie  soldiers  leaned  from  the  windows  of  their 
coaches  and  bantered  each  other.  The  "Yanks"  hurled  at  the  "Kebs"  some 
pieces  of  the  despised  "corn  pones"  which  were  to  be  exhibited  as  proof 
of  the  barbarity  of  "Rebel"  fare.  To  their  surprise  the  half-starved 
"Rebel"  prisoners  seixed  these  rejected  "Rebel"  rations,  ate  them  raven 
ously,  and  yelled  for  more. 

In  11)18.  under  the  caption.  "How  corn  may  help  win  the  War,"  the 
United  States  Food  Administration  sent  out  an  advertisement  which  reads: 
"\Yhen  we  use  more  corn,  the  Allies — our  associates  in  the  war — can  use 
more  wheat.  Tin  i/  <-<ni  not  use  cointneiil  inxl(<i<l  of  irhent  in  their  <l<iih/ 
diet,  as  ice  do,  because  neither  their  cooks  nor  their  ajtpctites  are  adapted 
to  it." 

i:"::The  older  partisan  accounts  and  present  comparisons  based  upon  the 
accounts  attempt  to  explain  this  by  the  statement  that  the  Confederates 
refused  exchange  to  negroes:  but  this  point  was  brought  up  long  after  the 
cartel  wa-  systematically  disregarded.  There  is  an  abundance  of  proof  of 
this.  The  following  extract  from  a  letter  from  General  U.  S.  Grant  to 
General  B.  F.  Butler,  18th  August,  18(14.  over  a  year  after  the  terms  of  the 
cartel  were  violated,  is  indicative  of  the  attitude  of  the  highest  Federal 
officer  towards  exchange:  "It  is  hard,"  wrote  Grant,  "on  our  men  in 
Southern  prisons  not  to  exchange  them,  but  it  is  humanity  to  those  left 
in  the  ranks  to  fight  our  battles." 


(7)  That  medicines  had  him  treated  by  tlie  Federal  ( iovermnent 
as  contraband  of  war,  so  that  the  people  of  the  South  were  often 
deprived    of   necessary    remedies,   not  only    for   their  own    sick    and 
wounded,  but  the  prisoners  as  well. 

(8)  That  prior  to  the  period  of  the  greatest  mortality  at  An- 
dersonville,  the  Confederate  authorities  offered  to  release  thousands 
of  prisoners,  trillion/  rc^uininj  any  equivalent  in  exchange  if  the 
Federal  Government  would  provide  transportation  for  them.     This 
offer  was  not  accepted  by  the  Federal  Government  until  too  late  to 
save  the  lives  of  thousands  of  those  who  died. 

(!))  That  the  control  of  the  prisons  in  the  Xorth  was  turned  over 
by  Secretary  Stanton  and  the  vindictive  and  partisan  men,  who 
were  later  responsible  also  for  the  crimes  of  Reconstruction,  to  the 
lowest  element  of  an  alien  population  and  to  negro  guards  of  a 
criminal  type;  and  that  such  men  as  President  Lincln,  Seward. 
McClellan  and  the  best  people  of  the  Xorth  were  intentionally  kept 
in  ignorance  of  conditions  in  Northern  prisons  while  officially  fur 
nished  with  stories  as  to  "the  deliberate  cruelties'7  practiced  in  the 
South.* 

General  Robert  E.  Lee,  who,  for  a  time,  was  held  as  /xtrticeps 
criminw  in  the  alleged  wholesale  barbarity,  but  whose  word  has 
never  been  found  to  be  false,  says  of  Libby  and  Belle  Tsle:  "I 
never  knew  that  any  cruelty  was  practiced,  and  I  have  no  reason  to 
believe  that  it  was  practiced.  I  can  believe,  and  have  reason  to 
believe,  that  privations  may  have  been  experienced  by  the  prisoners 
because  I  I'noir  (licit  provision  ami  s/ic//er  could  HO/  he'  //roriifed 
for  them/'  Again  he  stated,  in  April,  1867,  that  "The  laws  of  the 
Confederate  Congress  and  the  orders  of  the  War  Department  di 
rected  that  the  rations  furnished  prisoners  of  war  should  be  the 
same  in  quantity  and  quality  as  those  furnished  enlisted  men  in  the 
army  of  the  Confederacy,  and  that  the  hospitals  for  prisoners  should 

*This  Confederate  defense  against  the  charge  of  wholesale  and  deliberate 
cruelty  to  prisoners  is  amply  sustained  by  the  historical  evidence  at  hand. 
The  impartial  historian,  looking  for  all  the  salient  facts,  does  find,  however. 
as  a  kind  of  Haw  in  tne  frankness  of  the  Confederate  statement,  admissions 
on  the  part  of  reputable  authorities  that  there  was  evidence  of  executive 
failure  in  the  commissary  department.  It  may  be  said,  however,  that  the 
same  failure,  hi  n  more  exaggerated  form,  was  evident  in  the  supply  de 
partment  of  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia.  The  immediate  cause  of  the 
surrender  of  General  Lee  was  the  failure  of  support  on  the  part  of  his 
food  trains. 

Although  it  is  known  that  Abraham  Lincoln  was  told  of  the  alleged  cruel 
ties  ///  Xoiilhei  n  prisons  and  that  In-  irax  urged  l<>  denounce  Iliein  publicly, 
if  is  a  /'net  thai  President  Lincoln  nerer  did  so  commit  himself.  There  is. 
on  I  IK  control  //.  eridenee  io  show  that  he  did  not  believe  tliem.  Itciiig  <i 
keen  judge  of  men,  he  irell  l.-neir  the  character  of  both  the  accused  mid  the 
accusers,  the  Taller  including  both  those  irho  irilfulh/  mixre/>rexented  t!i< 
matter  nml  those  irlio  honexth/  heliered  the  misrepresentations. 

26 


be  plaeed  on  the  same  footing  as  other  Confederate  States  hospitals 
in  all  respects."* 

Turning  again  to  Andersonville  prison,  we  find  that  the  otlicial 
order  for  the  location  of  "a  large  prison"  in  the  South  in  180-1  was 
that  it  should  have  "a  healthy  locality,  plenty  of  pure  water,  a 
running  stream,  and,  if  possible,  shade  trees,  and  in  the  immedi 
ate  neighborhood  of  grist  and  saw  mills." 

The  Confederate  authorities  have  been  denounced  because  they 
did  not  cause  to  be  constructed  a  sufficient  number  of  barracks  at 
Andrsonville,  since  the  very  order  for  its  founding  required  that  it 
be  in  the  neighborhood  of  saw  mills.  This  order,  was,  indeed,  carried 
out  as  strictly  as  possible  in  accordance  with  the  other  conditions, 
but  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  South,  having  very  few  manu 
factories,  could  not  supply  the  tools  with  which  to  build  ;  and  that 
the  saw  mills  nearest  Andersonville,  being  very  primitive  affairs, 
were  not  able  to  supply  lumber  sulVicient  for  the  stockade,  much  less 
for  the  barracks.  But  few  of  the  officers  of  the  guard  had  "shanties"" 
and  these  were  generally  built  of  the  refuse  of  the  mills.  Some  of 
the  lumber  used  was  brought  a  distance  of  eighty  miles  and  all  of 
the  available  rolling  stock  of  the  Confederacy  was  taxed  to  its 
utmost  capacity  in  transporting  supplies  for  the  army  in  the  field 
and  to  the  prisons.  Tt  should  also  be  remembered  that  "during  the 

*Hospital  Xo.  21  in  Richmond.  Virginia,  was  among  those  singled  out  for 
special  charges  of  deliberate  cruelty  and  neglect  of  sick  prisoners.  Reliable 
testimony  by  Federal  officers  was  given  (and  officially  suppressed)  in 
rebuttal  of  these  charges;  but  there  was  one  incident  connected  with  this 
prison  hospital  that  is  of  unusual  interest.  At  the  time  of  the  surrender 
of  Richmond.  Hospital  Xo.  21  was  under  the  direction  of  Assistant-Surgeon 
Alexander  Tinsley.  Richmond  was  captured  on  the  3rd  of  April.  ISlio:  but 
when  the  Federal  prisoners  found  that  they  were  to  lose  the  kind  offices 
of  this  Confederate  surgeon,  they  themselves  petitioned  that  lie  be  allowed 
to  remain  in  charge.  This  was  accordingly  done  by  order  of  Major-General 
Weitzel.  U.  S.  A.  Surgeon  Tinsley  was  later  transferred  with  the  prisoners 
to  Jackson  Hospital  and  remained  on  duty  hi  the  fterriee  of  the  United  States 
(Inn  riniiciil  until  May  Oth.  or  until  there  was  no  further  use  for  his  ser 
vices.  His  modest  bill  of  $285.00  for  his  own  services  and  for  fuel  and 
board  for  himself  and  "forage"  for  his  hors<-  was  presented  to  the  United 
States  Government,  but  it  iras  never  honored,  although  the  claim  was 
brought  up  in  the  United  States  Senate  at  about  the  time  the  Hon.  James 
ft.  Elaine  was  making  his  wholesale  and  sweeping  accusations  of  cruelty 
against  all  the  Confederate  authorities  in  charge  of  the  prisoners,  including 
Surgeon  Tinsley.  The  Federal  order  appointing  Dr.  Tinsley  had  printed 
thereon:  "Medical  Director's  Office.  Army  of  the  James,  Before  Richmond, 
Va."  As  the  writer  was  preparing  the  order,  however,  he  triumphantly 
drew  his  pen  through  the  long-existent  "Before." 

There  can  be  no  ouestion  as  to  the  high  character  of  Surgeon  Tinsley.  as 
well  as  to  his  unselfish  devotion  to  duty.  He  testified,  near  the  close  of  the 
war.  before  a  Confederate  Committee  of  investigation:  "I  have  seen  many 
of  our  prisoners  returned  from  the  Xorth.  who  were  nothing  but  skin  and 
bones.  They  were  as  emaciated  as  they  could  be  to  retain  life.  I  saw  two 
hundred  and  fifty  of  our  sick  brought  in  on  litters  from  the  steamer  at 
Rockett's ;  thirteen  dead  bodies  were  brought  off  the  steamer  that  night. 
At  least  thirty  died  in  one  night  after  they  were  received." 

27 


last  two  years  of  the  war  there  was  not  even  a  tent  of  any  descrip 
tion  to  be  found  in  any  of  the  armies  of  the  Confederacy,  save  such 
as  were  captured  from  the  Federals."* 

Manv  writers,  including  the  distinguished  editor  of  "American 
State  Trials,"  still  refer  to  ^The  Dead  Line?J_.at_AndersQiLvillejgifli. 
expressions  of  horror,  and  it  has  heen  ofteii_br2B^!itf0Elv?r(^  as 
"/irinui  /«^V"ev"idence"  that  the  Southerners  were  intentionally  bar 
barous  and  cruel,  doubtless  in  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  a  "dead 
line" ""existerMfT  Northern -prisons.  At  Andersonville,  this  regula 
tion  was  an  absolute  necessity  and  -consisted  of  stakes  with  a  plank 
nailed  on  top  and  at  a  distance  of  twenty  feet  from  the  walls  of 
the  stockade."  Had  it  not  been  for  this  precaution,,  less  than  fifteen 
hundred  guards  could  never  have  held  the  thirty  thousand  and  more 
prisoners  under  their  control.  VVn'x  "dead  line"  was  well  defined, 
while  in  the  Northern  prisons  it  was  in  many  cases  wholly  un 
marked. 

^X  If  there  be  charges  of  neglect  and  brutality  in  the  burial  of 
prisoners  at  Andersonville,  the  records  show  that  the1  /nH-olal  pris 
oners  were  responsible  to  their  comrades  for  this  last  duty.  1  f  there 
be  charges  as  to  tilth  in  the  preparation  of  food  and  cruelty  in  its 
disjribution  to  the  prisoners,  it  is  to  their  paroled  companions  that 
the  complaints  may  be  carried,  fur  theyjyieifijn  charge  of  this  otlice. 
Tf  there  be  charges  of  foul  play,  murder,  and  robbery  of  the  helpfejs 
sick  by  night,  the  paroled  prisoners-may  answer  for  it.  They  there 
by  made  good  their  escape,  and  they  arc  among  those  who  testified 
that  another  was  guilty  of  deeds  they  themselves  had  committed.** 

The  best  known  and  the  only  specific  charges  of  cruelty  officially 
hi/.-cn  u/i  for  prosecution  by  the  United  States  (Government  were 
those  preferred  against  Captain  Henry  \Virx.  for  a  while  Command 
ant  at  Andersonville  prison. 

The  charges  sustained  by  the  ^Military  Court  which  declared  Cap 
tain  Wirx  guilty,  were,  in  brief: 

*Xot  only  were  there  few  implements  manufactured  in  the  South  for 
(  ar;  entering,  farming,  etc.,  but  even  nails  were  not  to  be  had,  "there  being 
but  one  solitary  manufactory  of  cut  nails  in  the  limits  of  the  Confederacy." 

**At  the  close  of  the  war,  Brigadier-General  Xeal  Dow,  C.  S.  V..  after 
wards  the  noted  temperance  reformer,  and  candidate  for  tli:1  Presidency, 
went  to  distribute  clothing  to  the  prisoners,  lie  was  greeted  with  profane 
abuse,  whereupon  he  turned  to  those  in  charge  and  said,  in  considerable 
humiliation  of  spirit:  "Yon  have  here  the  rakings  and  scrapings  of 
Europe."  Among  the  brave  men  held  prisoners  at  Andersonville.  there  was 
just  this  mercenary  element  to  be  contended  with,  and  great  numbers  of  tine 
American  soldiers'  sull'ered  terribly  at  the  hands  of  such  fellow-prisoners. 
Tlu>  Confederacy,  on  the  other  hand,  with  few  exceptions,  could  not  draw 
upon  -my  but  its  own  American-born  population.  Then1  was.  nevertheless, 
an  evil  element  amolig  the  Confederates  in  the  Northern  prisons.  These 
were  the  men  who  took  the  "'iron-clad  oath."  They  were  separated,  in  some 
cases,  from  their  former  comrades.  They  were  dubbed  "galvani/ed"  pris 
oners.  ;nid  were  uiven  more  and  better  rations  than  the  prisoners  who  re 
mained  loyal  to  the  cause  they  represented. 

28 


"That  he,  the  said  Henry  Wirz,  did  combine,  confederate  and 
conspire  \vitli  them,  the  sai'd  .JelTerson  Davis,  -lames  A.  Seddon. 
Howell  Cobb.  John  II.  Winder,  Richard  P>.  Winder.  Isaiah  II. 
White.  W.  S.  Winder,  W.  Shelhy  Reed,  R.  E.  Stevenson,  S.  P. 
Moore.  -  Kerr,  late  hospital-steward  at  Andersonville ;  James 
Duncan,  Wesley  W.  Turner,  Benjamin  Harris,  and  others  whose 
names  are  unknown,  citizens  of  the  United  States  aforesaid,  and_ 
who  were  then  engaged  in  armed  rebellion  against  the  United 
States,  maliciously,  traitorously,  and  in  violation  of  the  laws  ofj^ar, 
to  impair  and  in  jure  Hie"  health  and  to  destroy  the  lives — by  sub 
jecting  to  torture  and  great  suil'cring.  by  confining  in' unhealthy 
and  unwholesome  quarters,  by  exposing  to  the  inclemency  of  winter 
and  to  the  dews  and  burning' sun  of  summer,  by  compelling  the  use 
of  impure  water,  and  by  furnishing  insufficient  and  unwholesome 
f00(j — ()f  large  numbers  of  Federal  prisoners,  to  wit,  the  number 
of  about  toiiy-live  thousand,  soldiers  in  the  military  service  of  the 
I'nited  States  of  America,  held  as  prisoners  of  war  at  Anderson 
ville,  in  the  State  of  Georgia,  within  the  line  of  the  so-cajled  Con 
federate  States,  on  or  before  the  27th  day  of  March,  A.  1).  T864, 
and  at  divers  times  between  that  day  and  the  fOfTTday :~  oFSprTT,  _ 
A.  D.,  1865,  to  the  end  that  the  armies  of  the  I  mtecl  StafesTmgnT 
be  weakened  and  impaired,  and  the  insurgents  engaged  in  a-mied 
rebellion  against  the  United  States  might  he  aided  and  comforted.'' 

II.  "Murder  in  Violation  of  the  laws  and  customs  of  War"  in 
certain  specifications  to  the  number  of  thirteen.  In  these  "specifi 
cations."  Captain  Wirz  is  accused,  while  acting  as  Commandant, 
'of  feloniously,  wilfully  of  his  malice  aforethought, 'making  sundry 
and  several  assaults  upon  soldiers,  belonging  to  the  army  of  the 
United  States,  with  a  certain  pistol,  called  a  revolver,  then  and 
there  loaded  with  gunpowder  and  bullets  whereby  he  inflicted  mortal 
wounds  upon  their  bodies  so  that  they  died."  Three  soldiers  were 
murdered  thus,  in  each  case  the  "specification"  stating,  "whose 
name  is  unknown/''  Specification  No.  2  told  how  a  soldier,  name 
unknown,  was  stamped  to  death  by  said  Wirz.  Another  prisoner 
was  "tortured  unto  death  in  the  stocks."  Several  more  died  under 
specially  contrived  cruelties,  and  others  were  fired  upon  by  orders 
from  said  Wirz.  In  each  and  every  case,  the  name  of  the  victim 
was  "unknown." 

The  Military  Commission  declared  Captain  Wirz  guilty  of  charge 
I  and  of  practically  all  of  the  specifications  under  Charge  II,  and 
sentenced  him  to  be  hanged  on  the  tenth  day  of  November,  1865. 
/>  A  few  of  the  amazing  circumstances  connected  with  this  trial 
may  be  given  here  to  show  that  it  was,  perhaps,  the  ojitv.  really 
infamously  unjust  prosecution  and  conviction  on  reconUin  the  higi_ 
tory  of  the  jurisprudence  of  the  Tinted  States,  unless  partial  excep 
tion  be  made  as  to  the  condemnation  of  Mrs.  Surratt  and  Dr. 
Samuel  A.  Mudd,  unjustly  convicted  of  complicity  in  the  brutal  as 
sassination  of  President  Lincoln  by  the  demented  Pootli  and  his 
ignorantly  criminal  accomplices. 


Iii  the  first  place,  after  ascertaining  the  nature  and  purpose  of 
the  military  court  appointed,  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  to  try  Tapani  \Virx.  the  regularly  employed  coun 
sel  for  the  defense  withdrew  from  the  ease.  F,ven  permission  to  be 
heard,  according  to  law,  was  denied  the  prisoner.  It  may  be  added, 
by  way  of  a  sidelight  on  the  conditions  of  the  time,  that  the  three 
men  who  had  Keen  brought  forward  by  the  same  partisan  leaders 
for  the  purpose  of  convicting  Jefferson  Davis  of  complicity  in  the. 
assassination  of -President  Lincoln  had  just  been  shown  to  be  per 
jurers.  Two  had  turned  state's  evidence  against  the  third,  Conover, 
who  was  then  in  jail.  ("It  was  determined  that  no  chances  for  a 
.J-i-te  failure  were  to  be  taken  in  the  case  of  JVirz.  sLt  was,  moreover, 
easier  to  convict  a  subaltern  than  a  high  official  of  the  Confederacy.^? 

Captain  Wirz  was  placed  in . confinement  in  the  Old  Capitol 
Prison  on  the  7th  of  May,  1865;  and,  from  that  moment,  the  press 
and  people  of  the  country  were  fed  with  stories  of  the  "monster" 
and  "demon"  Wirz.  As  far  as  possible,  all  favorable  testimony  vol 
unteered  by  Federal  officers  and  soldiers  was  suppressed.  A  victim 
had  to  be  produced  by  radical  politicians  and  extremists  in 'order  to 
keep  the  American  people  from  learning  (1)  that  the  sultering  in 
the  Southern  prisons  could  have  been  prevented  by  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  and  (2)  that  there  were  at  least  equally  terrible  privations 
in  the  Xorthern  prisons,  a  knowledge  of  which  would  have  led  their 
countrymen  to  pour  out  their  indignation  on  them  instead. 

/In  the  second  place,  Captain  Wirz  was  accused,  by  the  terms  of 
Charge  I,  of  cons/iimn/  with  Jefferson  Davis  and  other  officials  of 
the  Confederacy,  in  deliberately  planning  the  death  of  thousands 
of  Federal  soldiers.  Xol^ji  gail^ 

a  coiix/n-ninj  (TIT  <'.rix/'<'//.  vet  Captain  Wirz  was  convicted  ojLthis 
grave  charge,  while  his  fellow  "conspirators,"  a  number  of  whom 
were  actually  named  in  the  Charge,  were  never  even  brought  to 
trial. 

W'  In  the  third  place,  the  specific  charges  of  murder  brought  against 
'captain  Wirz  were  made  by  only  twelve  to  fifteeii^of  the  one  hun 
dred  andjsixty  former  actual  or  alleged  prisoners  summoned  or  se 
cured  by  those  hacking  the  prosecution^?  At  least  most  of  these,  and 
perhaps  all  of  them,  like  Conover,  and  his  two  infamous  associates, 
were  perjurers.  One  of  the  witnesses  upon  whose  testimony  Judge- 
Advocate  Chipman  laid  particular  stress^  as  being  of  a  relwble  and 
1rnlli fill  diameter,  swore  himself  in  as  "Felix  de  la  Baume,"  a 
nephew  of  Marquis  Lafayette.  Upon  finishing  his  labors  on  the 
witness  stand,  and  lief  ore  the  trial  was  over,  he  was  rewarded  for 
his  trouble  by  bein^  appointed  to  a  clerkship  in  a  Department 
of  the  Federal  Government,  while  about  the  same  time  one  of  the 
witnesses  who  seemed  likely  to  offer  favorable  testimony  for  the 
defense,  was  arrested  in  open  court,  and  placed  behind  prison  bars 
before  he  could  testify.  Eleven  days  after  the  execution  of  Wirz, 

30 


flu1    alleged    Monsieur   tie    la    Baumc    proved    to    he    Felix    Oeser  of 
Saxony,  a  deserter  from  the  7th  Xew  York  Regiment.* 

Finally,  on  the  day  before  the  execution  of  Captain  \Virx,  a  tele 
gram  was  sent  out  to  the  effect  that  Wirz  had  made  a  confession 
which  implicated  JelTerson  Davis.  At  about  the  same  lime,  a  mes 
sage  was  sent  to  Wirz.  through  the  medium  of  his  minister,  Father 
l>o\le.  thaj  if  lie  would  int])lieate  Davis,  his  sentence  would  be  com 
muted.  MKurtheimore,  in  the  deliberate  elTort  to  blacken  the  char 
acter  of  Wirx  and  to  weaken  the  effect  of  Iris  declaration  of  inno 
cence,  a  telegram  was  sent  out  stating  on  high  authority  that  the 
prisoner's  wife  had  attempted,  on  the  27th  of  October,  to  poison 
her  brute  of  a  husband,  although  Mrs.  Wirz  was,  at  that  time,  hun 
dreds  of  miles  away^~To  cap  the  climax,  the  body  of  the  prisoner 
was  refused  a  Christian  burial.  Tt  is  perhaps  significant  of  ulti 
mate  justice  at  the  bar  of  history,  which  Lincoln  has  truly  declared 
"we  cannot  escape/7  that  the  body  of  Wirx  was  placed  in  'the  yard 
of  the  jail  beside  the  body  of  Mrs.  Surratt,  who  is  now  generally 
regarded  as  the  innocent  victim  of  another  military  commission. 
^uivly^jXlji]rrainWirz  were_^a_tool"  and  Pmiltv^ofJ-hp  crimes  for 
wTiiclih^jvasconyjcIed  um1er~77C  Charge  I,"  the  meiTwKolFo  infam-"" 
6usTy~used  _j^T^j^siicTi'~\v:ei'e~?aT^i o re~^nrnliiaT~an d  deser vTiT g~ of 
the  gallows  than  theTiniiiTreTlTngT'^priiy  were  they,  too,  not  hanged, 
or  at  least  brought  to  trial?  The  answer  is  given  above  in  that 
those  responsible  for  the  prosecution  of  Wirz  knew  that  while  he, 
a  poor  subordinate  officer,  might  be  convicted  in  the  heat  of  sec 
tional  passion  provoked  by  their  misrepresentations,  it  was  quite 
another  matter  to  try  and  to  convict  the  great  leaders  of  the  Con 
federacy.  They  knew  perfectly  well  that  the  best  element — the 

*Concerning  the  accounts  of  cruelty  presented  in  regard  to  the  alleged 
"barbarous  practice"  of  running  down  fugitive  Federal  prisoners  with 
bloodhounds,  quotations  from  these  very  witnesses  are  sufficient  to  refute 
the  alleged  fierceness  of  these  "blood-thirsty  animals."  We  are  told  by  one 
Mr.  Goss.  in  his  scathing  denunciation  of  the  Confederate  prison  officials, 
how  lie,  with  a  "rotten  fence  rail,"  held  a  whole  pack  of  these  ferocious 
hounds  at  bay.  Another,  pursued  for  hours  by  a  number  of  these  ravenous 
beasts,  tells  how.  exhausted,  he  fell  asleep  only  to  be  awakened  by  one  of 
then-,  licking  his  face."  Still  another  such  writer  unwittingly  shows  us  the 
real  kindness  of  "the  terrible  brute  Wirz"  by  describing  "the  villain"  as 
he  came  into  the  camp  on  sundry  occasions  to  warn  prisoners  against  reck 
lessness,  lest  there  should  be  unnecessary  loss  of  life. 

As  late  as  June.  1902,  an  article  in  the  Century  Magazine  stated  that, 
"Jefferson  Davis.  President,  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  was  known  to 
have  imported  a  pack  [of  bloodhounds]  for  breeding  purposes.  They  were 
ordered  destroyed.  The  man  detailed  for  this  work  was  a  brother  of  Mr. 
George  H.  Meeker  of  Beatrice.  Nebraska.  He  performed  his  task  well, 
for  it  is  said  that  lie  found  and  killed  no  fewer  than  forty-seven  bloodhounds 
at  Mr.  Davis's  home." 

As  a  matter  of  fact.  Mr.  Davis  not  only  did  not  import  any  bloodhounds, 
but  he  did  not  own  any  dogs  at  all.  Tn  the  September  issue  of  the  Century 
Magazine  the  editors  apologized  for  the  error  of  their  contributors  and 
stated  the  facts,  at  least  as  far  as  Jefferson  Davis  was  concerned  in  regard 
to  this  popular  and  historical  misconception. 

31 


great  majority — of  the  Northern  people  would  Irani  the  truth  in 
such  a  trial  :  and  learning  the  truth,. they  would  lind  out  and  punish 
the  accusers  instead  of  the  accused. ^> 

Is  it  not  time  that  the  name  of  Major  Henry  \Virx  he  cleared  of 
undeserved  infamy,  just  as  the  names  of  many  other  innocent  men 
have  heen  cleared?  Is  it  easier  to  let  things  go  on  as  it  is,  so  that 
"one  man  uiav  hear  the  hlame  for  all?"  If  so,  is  it  right?  The 
answer  from  all  fair-minded  Americans  will  he  an  emphatic  nega 
tive. 


The  South  in  the  Matter  of  Pensions 

Money  for  pensions  lias  heen  raised  hy  this  govern ment  through 
a  uniform  system  of  taxation,  hearing  alike  upon  North,  South,  East 
and  West,  The  man  in  the  South  lias  paid  his  share  along  with  the 
man  in  the  North,  and  his  rate  of  taxation  has  all  along  heen  the 
same.  Yet  there  has  heen  a  most  marked  difference  in  the  amount 
of  money  received  by  the  South  through  pensions  as  compared  with 
the  hundreds  of  millions  paid  throughout  the  North.  While  the 
Southern  man  has  home  this  burden  cheerfully,  complaining  only 
when  corruption  was  especially  rank,  it  is  important  to  note  that 
this  excess  amount  of  pensions  claimed  by  the  North  and  paid  to 
the  Xorth  is  not  confined  to  pensions  of  the  War  between  the  States, 
but  begins  with  the  beginning  of  the  pension  system  of  this  govern 
ment. 

The  North  early  began  to  lay  claim  to  large  pensions  and  to 
receive  them.  From  the  year  171)1  to  the  year  1XM  this  govern 
ment  paid  out  in  pensions  $21).(>iM).()(H).  Of  this  sum,  approxi 
mately  -$2<). <><)<),(><><)  was  paid  to  the  Xorth.  while  only  $9,000,000 
was  distributed  throughout  the  entire  South.  And  be  it  borne  in 
mind  that  these  pensions  were  paid  for  wars  in  which  all  fought  on 
the  same  side  and  in  which  the  numbers  furnished  by  the  South 
compare  most  faovrably  with  the  numbers  furnished  by  the  North. 
These  pensions  were  for  the  Revolution  and  for  the  War  of  1X12, 
with  perhaps  minor  wars,  Indian  wars,  etc. 

During  this  period  there  were  paid  out  to  the  States  severally  as 
follows:  New  York,  .$(>,1X(>,(M)<)  :  Massachusetts,  $'\;.\\\\  .ono  :  Penn 
sylvania,  $2,664,000 ;,  Maine,  $2,llo.()()() ;  Connecticut,  $l,!M2.oo<> ; 
Vermont,  -$1,1)23,000;  New  Hampshire,  .$l,(>!)7.nnn  :  Virginia,  •$!.- 
(il!», (MM);  Kentucky,  $1,192,000;  and  no  other  Southern  State  drew 
as  much  as  one  million  dollars  for  this  period  from  171)1  to  lx:>:>. 
This  is  a  very  striking  comparison,  and  the  causes  for  it  lie  in  the 
characteristics  of  the  people. 

Now,  as  to  pensions  of  the  War  Between  the  States,  the  South 
has  received  comparatively  nothing,  and  yet  the  report  of  the  Com- 

32 


missioncr  of  Pensions  in  the  year  19U9  shows  that  there  had  hccn 
paid  out  up  to  that  year  the  enormous  sum  of  $3,686,000,000,  and 
of  tin's  total  the  South  had  eontrihuted  its  full  share  through  a 
system  of  uniform  taxation  throughout  the  country. 

Moreover,  the  South  has  borne  the  burden  cheerfully,  making 
complaint  only  when  some  flagrant  raid  on  the  treasury  was  engi 
neered  through  the  Congress,  such  as  the  service  pension  act  of 
February  (5.  19<>7.  where  $58,000,000  per  year  was  added  to  the 
pension  burden,  already  loaded  with  fraud,  and  millions  paid  out  to 
Northern  soldiers,  so  called,  who  had  never  seen  a  battle  field  nor 
fired  a  gun. 

As  an  example  of  the  unequal  distribution  of  national  money 
through  pensions,  take  the  report  of  the  Commissioner  for  the  year 
1909,  in  which  year  $161.9?3.0<H>  was  disbursed.  Of  this  sum.  the 
eleven  States  which  composed  the  Confederacy  received  about  $12,- 
:!nn.nnn,  and  the  North  received  the  balance,  proportioned  among 
the  States  in  part  as  follows:  Ohio,  $16,376,000;  Pennsylvania, 
si:,.:>>54,000;  Xew  York,  $13,942,000;  Illinois,  $11,311,000;  In 
diana.  $in.f>k).00():  and  the  other  $80,000,000  was  scattered 
through  the  remainder  of  Northern  and  New  England  States,  with 
a  small  proportion  sent  abroad. 

As  far  back  as  1830  Senator  Hayne,  of  South  Carolina,  complain 
ed  that  the  pension  system  was  being  maintained  as  a  heavy  charge 
upon  the  treasury  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  up  the  system  of  high 
duties  to  which  the  South  objected.  He  estimated  that  there  had 
been  distributed  up  to  that  time  about  $15,000,000  to  the  North  and 
Wesl  and  about  $5,000,000  to  the  South.  Tn  Hayne's  view  the 
South  was  paying  the  greater  portion  of  the  money  which  supplied 
the  treasury,  while  the  public  money  was  being  expended  chiefly  in 
the  Xorth.'  So,  even  though  the  complaints  of  Northern  politicians 
of  this  good  year  191?  were  true — and  they  are  not — that  the  South. 
being  in  the  saddle  politically,  was  legislating  to  her  exclusive  ad 
vantage  and  receiving  an  unjust  due  of  public  money,  the  South 
could  point  to  the  past  for  her  excuse  and  example. 

Congressman  Thomas  I".  Sisson.  of  Mississippi,  said  in  a  speech 
at  Memphis  in  1909  :  "If  Mississippi  received  only  one-fifth  of  the 
amount  which  Ohio  receives  each  year  for  pensions,  she  could  relieve 
herself  of  her  present  school  tax  and  not  pay  one  cent  and  yet  run 
her  schools  eight  months  in  the  year."  This  further  striking  state 
ment  is  made:  "Kansas  gets  $5,423,000  in  pensions  and  has  a 
population  of  about  1,500,000 — that  is,  she  gets  over  $3.60  for  every 
man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  State.  If  Mississippi  received  as 
much,  she  could  run  the  whole  State  government  on  it  each  year 
and  have  over  $2,500,000  left  each  year.  What  she  received  each 
year  would  not  only  run  our  entire  State  government,  but  would 
pay  all  the  State,  county,  and  municipal  expenses.  The  amount 
paid  is  taken  from  the  report  for  the  year  ending  June,  1007." 
Congressman  Sisson  takes  the  figures  from  official  reports  of  1900 

33 


and  shows  how  sums  are  paid  into  the  following  States  that  would 
equal  per  head  for  each  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  State  the  fol 
lowing:  Ohio,  over  '$0.50:  Vermont,  over  $3.92;  Maine,  over  $4; 
Massachusetts,  $1.88. 

It  must  be  continually  borne  in  mind  that  these  sums  are  paid 
into  these  States  from  a  fund  levied  upon  all  parts  of  the  country 
alike:  and  while  millions  have  thus  been  taken  from  the  impover 
ished  South  and  poured  into  the  lap  of  the  rich  North,  the  South  has 
paid  it  uncomplainingly  and  has  at  the  same  time  taxed  herself 
further  for  the  support  and  aid  of  her  own  soldiers. 

While  thus  from  the  beginning  of  this  government  the  South  has 
paid  its  share  of  taxes  and  borne  its  share  of  burdens,  receiving  only 
a  minor  portion  of  public  disbursements,  it  has  always  measured  up 
with  great  patriotism  to  the  demands  of  the  government,  and  in  no 
way  has  this  been  exemplified  more  strikingly  than  in  its  subscrip 
tions  to  the  liberty  loans.  Be  it  remembered' that  every  dollar  sub 
scribed  to  these  loans  by  the  South  was  subscribed  from  a  purely 
patriotic  motive  and  at  a  sacrifice,  for  in  this  section  legal  rates 
of  interest  mount  to  eight  and  ten  per  cent,  and  money  can  be 
readily  invested  and  loaned  at  such  rates,  and  the  buying  of  a  gov 
ernment  bond  paying  three  and  a  half  per  cent  is  a  sacrifice;  while 
in  the  wealthy  Xorth,  with  its  great  surplus  of  wealth  and  call 
money  lending  as  low  as  one  per  cent,  it  is  no  sacrifice  to  invest  in 
a  stable  government  security  at  three  and  a  half  per  cent.  This 
is  not  said  in  criticism  of  the  Xorth,  which  is  measuring  up  to  the 
demands  of  this  great  war,  but  it  illustrates  that,  while  the  South 
from  her  scantier  stores  patriotically  furnishes  what  she  can,  she 
doe«  it  at  a  sacrifice  not  felt  in  the  Xorth  and  should  receive  credit 
therefor,  even  though  her  aggregate  subscriptions  may  not  equal 
the  contributions  of  the  far  wealthier  section. 

[The  above  figures  are  obtained  from  Volume  V.,  The  South  in 
the  Budding  of  the  Xation,"  in  chapter  on  "Economic  Conditions." 
written  for  the  series  by  Professor  Glasson,  of  the  Chair  of  Political 
Economy  of  Trinity  College,  who  gives  as  further  authority  "Execu 
tive  Documents  2d  Sess.,  23d  Cong.,  1834-35,"  iii.,  Xo.  *!>',  pai^e  32. 
"The  South  in  the  Building  of  the  Nation"  is  published  by  the 
Southern  Historical  Publication  Society,  of  "Richmond.  Va..  with  a 
long  list  of  distinguished  editors  in  chief,  and  the  subject  of  "Eco 
nomic  History'7  in  under  the  charge  of  Professor  Ballagh.  of  Johns 
Hopkins.] 


34 


Injustice  to  the  South 

\\\    Rev.   Randolph  II.   M'Kini.   I).   1)..   LL.   D..  Washington,  D.  C. 

A  bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  speaking  in  Paris 
a  year  or  more  ago,  described  the  Southern  Confederacy  as  "a 
belligerent  that  was  fighting  to  make  slavery  a  permanent  principle 
on  which  to  establish  and  maintain  national  life."  A  general  of  the 
United  States  army,  speaking  to  the  Y.  M.  (1.  A.  in  Xew  York, 
stated  that  "the  issues  at  stake  between  the  Allies  and  the  Teutonic 
powers  are  the  same  as  those  that  were  contested  between  the  North 
and  South  in  the  American  Civil  War — the  forces  of  slavery  and 
disunion  on  the  one  side  and  the  forces  of  liberty  and  freedom  on 
the  other."  An  eminent  British  statesman  in  Parliament  gave  ut 
terance  to  a  similar  sentiment,  declaring  that  the  struggle  on  which 
the  United  Staes  has  now  embarked  is  essentially  the  same  as  that 
on  which  it  embarked  nearly  sixty  years  ago  in  the  War  between 
the  States.  And  a  great  Xew  York  daily  (the  Times)  has  pro 
claimed  to  the  world  that  there  is  an  essential  analogy  between  the 
spirit  of  the  Hohenzollerns  and  that  of  "the  slave  power  with  which 
the  United  States  came  to  grips  in  1861." 

These  utterances,  in  my  opinion,  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to 
pass  unchallenged,  for  they  embody,  first,  a  contradiction  of  the 
facts  of  history,  and,  second,  a  cruel  slander  against  a  brave  and 
noble  people.  I  submit  that  a  careful  and  unbiased  study  of  the 
history  of  the  epoch  of  the  American  Civil  War  establishes  beyond 
the  power  of  successful  contradiction  that  the  soldiers  of  the  Con 
federacy  were  not  battling  for  slaves  or  slavery,  but  for  the  right 
of  self-government,  for  the  principle  lately  asserted  by  President 
Wilson,  that  "governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed."  Neither  was  the  war  inaugurated  and  prosecuted 
upon  the  Northern  side  for  the  purpose  of  liberating  the  slave,  but 
for  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 

Tn  support  of  my  contention  I  cite,  first,  the  testimony  of  Abra 
ham  Lincoln.  In  August,  1862,  he  wrote  Mr.  Greeley:  "My  para 
mount  object  in  this  struggle  is  to  save  the  Union  and  is  not  either 
to  save  or  destroy  slavery.  If  I  could  save  the  Union  without 
freeing  any  slave,  I  would  do  it ;  and  if  I  could  save  it  by  freeing  all 
the  slaves,  I  would  do  it;  and  if  I  could  save  it  by  freeing  some 
and  leaving  others  alone,  I  would  also  do  that.  What  I  do  about 
slavery  and  the  colored  race  I  do  because  I  believe  it  helps  to  save 
the  Union,  and  what  I  forbear  I  forbear  because  I  do  not  believe  it 
would  help  to  save  the  Union."  ("Short  Life  of  Abraham  Lincoln" 
by  Xicolay,  page  336.) 

Mr.  Lincoln,  then,  was  waging  the  war  not  to  free  the  slaves, 
but  to  save  the  Union,  and  when  he  issued  his  Emancipation  Proc- 

35 


Initiation  on  January  1,  1S(>M,  he  did  not  undertake.'  to  Five  all  the 
slaves,  hut  only  "those  pel-sons  held  as  slaves  within  any  State  the 
people  whereof  shall  then  he  in  rehellion  against  the  United  States." 
(Idem,  page  341.) 

Slaves  in  States  not  in  rehellion  were  not  released  from  slavery 
liy  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  hut  by  the  Thirteenth  Amend 
ment  to  the  Constitution. 

Moreover,  Mr.  Lincoln  declared  that  the  freeing  of  the  slaves 
was  a  war  measure,  adopted  solely  hecause  he  deemed  that  it  would 
further  the  supreme  ohject  of  the  war — viz.,  the  preservation  of  the 
Union. 

On  the  other  hand,  1  maintain  that  the  Southern  States  did  not 
go  to  war  for  the  perpetuation  of  slavery,  hut  for  the  preservation 
of  the  principle  of  self-government.  To  say  that  the  battle  flag 
of  the  Confederacy  was  the  emblem  of  slave  power  and  that  Lee  and 
.Jackson  and  their  heroic  soldiers  fought  not  for  liberty,  but  for  the 
right  to  hold  their  fellow  men  in  bondage,  is  to  contradict  the  facts 
of  history.  Jefferson  Davis,  the  President  of  the  Confederacy,  de 
clared  that  the  South  was  not  lighting  for  slavery;  and,  in  fact,  be 
embarked  on  the  enterprise  of  secession  believing  that  he  would  as 
a  consequence  lose  his  slaves,  for  he  wrote  to  his  wife  in  February, 
1861,  "In  any  case  our  slave  property  will  eventually  be  lost"- 
that  is  to  say,  whether  successful  or  not  in  establishing  the  South 
ern  Confederacy. 

Lee,  the  foremost  soldier  of  the  South,  long  before  the  war  had 
emancipated  the  few  slaves  that  came  to  him  by  inheritance:  where 
as  his  Union  antagonist.  General  Grant,  held  on  to  those  that  had 
come  to  him  through  marriage  with  a  Southern  woman  until  they 
were  freed  by  the  Thirteenth  Amendment.  Stonewall  Jackson 
never  owned  more  than  two  negroes,  a  man  and  a  woman,  whom 
he  bought  at  their  earnest  solicitation.  lie  kept  account  of  the  wages 
he  would  have  paid  white  labor,  and  when  he  considered  himself 
reimbursed  for  the  purchase  money  (for  he  was  a  poor  man)  he 
gave  them  their  freedom.  Gen.  Joseph  E.  Johnston  never  owned  a 
slave,  noi-  did  Gen.  A.  P.  Hill,  nor  Gen.  Fit/hugh  Lee.  Gen.  J. 
E.  B.  Stuart,  the  great  cavalry  leader,  owned  but  two.  and  he  rid 
himself  of  both  long  prior  to  the  war.  (See  article  by  Col.  W. 
Gordon  McCabe  in  the  London  ^(ilurdni/  AVr/V/r  of  March  ~>. 
1910.) 

To  this  testimony  of  the  most  puissant  men  engaged  in  the  con 
flict  1  add  the  testimony  of  the  common  soldiers  of  the  Confederacy. 
With  one  voice  then  and  with  one  voice  now  the  Southern  soldiers 
avowed  that  they  were  not  fighting  and  suffering  and  dying  for 
slavery,  but  for  the  right  of  self-government. 

T  was  a  soldier  in  Virginia  in  the  campaigns  of  Lee  and  Jackson, 
and  I  declare  T  never  met  a  Southern  soldier  who  had  drawn  his 
sword  to  perpetuate  slavery.  Xor  was  the  dissolution  of  the  Union 
or  the  establishment  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  the  supreme  issue 

36 


ill  the  mind  of  the  Southern  soldier.  What  lie  had  chiefly  at  heart 
was  the  preservation  of  the  supreme  and  sacred  right  of  self-gov- 
ernmnt.  The  men  who  made  up  the  Southern  armies  were  not  light 
ing  for  their  slaves  when  they  east  all  in  the  balance — their  lives, 
their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor — and  endured  the  hardships 
of  the  march  ami  the  cam])  and  the  perils  and  sufferings  of  the 
battle  field.  Besides,  it  was  a  very  small  minority  of  the  men 
who  fought  in  the  Southern  armies  who  were  financially  interested 
in  the  institution  of  slavery. 

But  the  Southern  Confederacy  is  reproached  with  the  fact  that  it 
was  deliberately  built  on  slavery.  Slavery,  we  are  told,  was  its 
corner  stone.  But  if  slavery  was  the  corner  stone  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  what  are  we  to  say  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States?  That  instrument  as  originally  adopted  by  the  thirteen 
colonies  contained  three  sections  which  recognized  slavery.  And 
whereas  the  Constitution  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  prohibited 
the  slave  trade,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  prohibited  the 
abolition  of  the  slave  trade  for  twenty  years.  And  if  the  men  of 
the  South  are  reproached  for  denying  liberty  to  three  and  one-half 
million  of  human  beings  at  the  same  time  that  they  professed  to  be 
waging  a  great  war  for  their  own  liberty,  what  are  we  to  say  of  the 
revolting  colonies  of  1776  who  rebelled  against  the  British  crown 
to  achieve  their  liberty  while  slavery  existed  in  every  one  of  the 
thirteen  colonies  unrepudiated  ? 

( 'annot  these  historians  who  deny  that  the  South  fought  for 
liberty  because  they  held  the  blacks  in  bondage  see  that  upon  the 
same  principle  they  must  impugn  the  sincerity  of  the  signers  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  ?  For  while  in  that  famous  instrument 
they  affirmed  before  the  whole  world  that  all  men  were  created  free 
and  equal  and  that  "governments  derive  their  powers  from  the  con 
sent  of  the  governed,"  they  took  no  steps  whatever  to  free  the  slaves 
which  were  held  in  every  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies.  Xo;  if  the 
corner  stone  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  was 
slavery,  the  Constitution  of  1789 — the  Constutition  of  the  United 
States — had  a  worse  corner  stone,  since  it  held  its  a?gis  of  protection 
over  the  slave  trade  itself.  We  ask  the  candid  historian.,  then,  to 
answer  this  question:  If  the  colonists  of  1776  were  freemen  fight 
ing  for  liberty,  though  holding  men  in  slavery  in  every  one  of  the 
thirteen  colonies,  why  is  the  tribute  of  loving  liberty  denied  to  the 
Southern  men  of  1861  because  they  too  held  men  in  bondage? 

If  George  Washington,  a  slaveholder,  was  yet  a  champion  of 
liberty,  how  can  that  title  be  denied  to  Robert  E.  Lee  ? 

Slavery  was  not  abolished  in  the  British  dominions  until  the 
year  1833.  Will  any  man  dare  to  say  that  there  were  no  champions 
of  human  liberty  in  England  before  that  time? 

It  will  not  he  amiss  at  this  point  to  remind  your  readers,  espe 
cially  your  English  readers,  that  the  government  of  England  and 
not  the  people  of  the  South  was  originally  responsible  for  the  intro- 

37 


duct  ion  of  slavery.  The  colony  of  Virginia  again  and  again  and 
a *rain  protested  to  the  British  king  against  sending  slaves  to  her 
shores,  but  in  vain;  they  were  forced  upon  her.  Nearly  one  hun 
dred  petitions  against  the  introduction  of  slavery  were  sent  by  the 
colonists  of  Virginia  to  the  British  government. 

In  1760  South  Carolina  passed  an  act  to  prevent  the  further  im 
portation  of  slaves,  but  Kngland  rejected  it  with  indignation.  Let 
it  also  be  remembered  that  Virginia  was  the  first  of  all  the  States 
in  the  South  to  prohibit  trade  in  slaves,  and  Georgia  was  the  first 
to  put  such  a  prohibition  into  her  organic  constitution.  In  fact, 
Virginia  was  in  advance  of  the  whole  world  on  this  subject.  She 
abolished  the  slave  trade  in  1778,  nearly  thirty  years  before  England 
did  and  the  same  period  before  New  England  was  willing  to  consent 
to  its  abolition.  Again,  in  the  convention  which  adopted  the  Fed 
eral  Constitution  'Virginia  raised  her  protest  against  the  continu 
ance  of  that  traffic:  but  Xew  England  objected  and,  uniting  her  in 
fluence  with  that  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  secured  the  con 
tinuance  of  the  slave  trade  for  twenty  years  more  by  constitutional 
provision.  On  the  other  hand,  the  first  statute  establishing  slavery 
in  America  was  passed  by  Massachusetts  in  December,  1641,  in  her 
code  entitled  "Body  of  Liberties/'  The  first  fugitive  slave  law  was 
enacted  by  the  same  State.  She  made  slaves  of  her  captives  in  the 
Pequot  War.  Thus  slavery  was  an  inheritance  which  the  people 
of  the  South  received  from  the  fathers;  and  if  the  States  of  the 
North  after  the  Revolution  sooner  or  later  abolished  the  institution, 
it  cannot  be  claimed  that  the  abolition  was  dicated  by  moral  con 
siderations,  but  rather  by  differences  of  climate,  soil,  and  industrial 
interests.  It  existed  in  several  of  the  Northern  States  more  than 
fifty  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 

I  said  at  the  outset  that  the  utterances  which  I  quoted  from  sev 
eral  prominent  persons  and  from  an  editorial  in  a  great  American 
daily  embodied  a  cruel  slander  against  a  brave  and  noble  people. 
The  comparison  of  the  Southern  leaders  and  soldiers — their  motives, 
their  aims,  their  methods  of  conducting  war — with  the  ITohenzol- 
lern  despots  and  their  cruel  officers  and  barbarous  hordes  of  soldiers 
is  truly  amazing.  To  show  its  untruth  and  its  cruel  injustice  it 
would  be  sufficient  to  quote  the  generous  words  of  some  of  the  most 
distinguished  soldiers  who  fought  for  the  Union  in  the  sixties- 
such  men  as  Gen.  Francis  Bartlett,  Capt.  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes, 
and  Gen.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  of  Massachusetts. 

Captain  Holmes,  long  since  an  eminent  justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  said  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century 
ago:  "We  believed  in  the  principle  that  the  Union  is  indissoluble, 
but  we  equally  believed  that  those  who  stood  against  us  held  just  as 
sacred  convictions  that  were  the  opposite  of  ours,  and  we  respected 
them  as  every  man  with  a  heart  must  respect  those  who  give  all 
for  their  belief." 

38 


And  Charles  Francis  Adams  declared  that  "both  the  North  and 
the  South  were  right  in  the  great  struggle  of  the  Civil  \Var.  because 
each  believed  itself  right." 

Mr.  Khodes,  perhaps  the  ablest  Xorthern.  historian  of  the  war, 
declared  that  the  time  would  come  when  the  whole  American  people 
"will  recognize  in  Eobert  E.  Lee  one  of  the  finest  products  of  Amer 
ican  life.  As  surely  as  the  years  go  on  we  shall  see  that  such  a  life 
can  be  judged  by  no  partisan  measure,  but  we  shall  come  to  look 
upon  him  as  the  English  of  our  day  regard  Washington,  whom  a 
little  more  than  a  century  ago  they  delighted  to  call  rebel." 

To  compare  such  a  pure  and  exalted  hero  as  Lee  with  a  tyrant 
like  the  Hohenzollern  Emperor,  or  such  a  Christian  soldier  as 
Stonewall  Jackson  with  a  heartless  commander  like  Hindenburg 
or  a  soulless  tyrant  like  von  Bissing,  is  an  outrage  upon  the  human 
understanding.  To  compare  soldiers  such  as  those  who  followed 
Joseph  E.  Johnston  and  Albert  Sidney  Johnston  and  the  two  Vir 
ginia  commanders  just  named  with  the  brutal  and  savage  legions 
that  have  desolated  Belgium  and  France  almost  passes  belief.  And 
yet  the  conspicuous  authorities  named  at  the  outset  of  this  article 
have  dared  to  say  that  there  is  an  essential  analogy  between  the 
spirit  of  the  Hohenzollerns  and  that  of  the  Southern  Confederacy. 
Let  them  tell  us  wherein  consists  the  likeness.  Did  the  government 
of  the  Southern  Confederacy  ever  ruthlessly  violate  the  freedom 
of  any  other  State?  Did  it  cherish  any  ambition  to  establish  its 
dominion  over  any  other  part  of  the  United  States  or  of  the 
world  ?  Did  it  violate  its  plighted  faith  and  scoff  at  a  treaty  as  a 
"mere  scrap  of  paper'''  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that,  with  one  or  two  ex 
ceptions,  during  all  the  four  years  of  war  the  Confederate  soldiers 
in  their  conduct  of  war  respected  the  principles  of  civilization  and 
humanity?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  when  Lee  in  his  offensive-defensive 
campaign  of  1863  invaded  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  his  soldiers 
not  only  were  not  guilty  of  any  barbarity  or  of  any  rapine,  but  so 
respected  private  property  that  in  the  three  weeks  they  were  march 
ing  and  fighting  on  the  soil  of  Pennsylvania  they  left  behind  them 
not  a  single  print  of  the  iron  hoof  of  war?  And  yet  men  of  God 
and  officers  high  in  rank  and  editors  of  commanding  ability  have 
not  hesitated  to  institute  a  comparison  between  the  Hohenzollerns 
and  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  the  slave  power  of  the  South! 
Let  me  say  to  them  that  if  they  would  find  a  parallel  to  the  spirit 
of  the  Hohenzollerns  as  that  spirit  has  been  displayed  in  this  tre 
mendous  war  against  liberty,  they  will  find  it  in  the  record  of  the 
pillage  and  rapine  and  the  desolation  inflicted  by  the  soldiers  of 
the  Union  and  their  camp  followers  in  the  Shenandoah  Valley  of 
Yirignia  under  Sheridan's  orders  and  in  the  States  of  South  Caro 
lina  and  Georgia  under  the  orders  of  General  Sherman. 

Here  is  what  Gen.  Charles  Francis  Adams  says  on  that  subject: 
"Sherman's  advancing  army  was  enveloped  and  followed  by  a  cloud 

39 


of  irresponsible  stragglers  *  *  *  known  as  bummers,  who  were 
simply  for  the  time  being  desperadoes  bent  on  pillage  and  destruc 
tion,  subject  to  no  discipline,  amenable  to  no  law;  in  reality 
a  band  of  Goths.  Their  existence  was  a  disgrace  to  the  cause  they 
professed  to  serve." 

General  Adams  continues :  "Our  own  methods  during  the  final 
stages  of  the  conflict  were  sufficiently  described  by  General  Sheri 
dan  when,  during  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  as  the  guest  of  Bis 
marck,  he  declared  against  humanity  in  warfare,  contending  that 
the  correct  policy  was  to  treat  a  hostile  population  Avith  the  utmost 
rigor,  leaving  them,  as  he  expressed  it,  'nothing  but  their  eyes  to 
>\TC]>  with.'  In  other  words,  a  veteran  of  our  civil  strife,  General 
Sheridan,  advocated  in  an  enemy's  country  the  sixteenth-century 
practices  of  Tilly,  described  by  Schiller,  and  the  later  devastation 
of  the  Palatinate,  commemorated  by  Goethe/'  ("Military  Studies," 
pages  266,  267.) 

Note  also  that  these  acts  of  plunder  and  cruelty  were  not  prac 
ticed  by  the  bummers  only,  but  by  officers  and  soldiers.  I  have 
recently  read  again  the  description  of  an  eyewitness,  that  learned 
and  accomplished  man,  Dr.  •  John  Bachman,  of  South  Carolina, 
honored  with  membership  in  various  societies  in  England,  France, 
Germany,  Eussia,  etc.,  and  the  narrative  reads  like  a  description 
of  the  devastation  and  cruelty  and  barbarian  practices  of  the  soldiers 
of  Van  Kluck  in  Belgium  and  France.  One  sentence  may  suffice 
here :  "A  system  of  torture  was  practiced  toward  the  weak,  un 
armed,  and  defenseless  which,  so  far  as  I  know  and  believe,  was  uni 
versal  throughout  the  whole  course  of  that  invading  army."  Not 
only  aged  men  but  delicate  women  were  made  the  subjects  of  their 
terrorism.  Even  the  blacks  were  "tied  up  and  cruelly  beaten." 
Several  poor  creatures  died  under  the  infliction. 

There,  and  not  in  the  armies  of  the  South,  will  be  found  a  parallel 
to  the  spirit  of  the  Hohenzollerns. 


40 


The  Secession  of  1861  Founded  Upon 
Legal  Right 

By  E.  W.  R.  Bwing,  A.  M.,  LL.  B.,  LL.  D., 

Historian-in-Chief,  S.  C.  V. 

Author  of  "Legal  and  Historical  Status  of  the  Dred  Scott 
Decision/'  &c. 

Secession  rested  upon  fundamental  law.  The  secession  from  the 
United  States  by  the  several  States  of  the  South  in  1861,  which 
led  to  the  war  between  the  Confederacy  and  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  aided  by  the  remaining  States,  was  within  constitutional  right 
found  in  that  greatest  governmental  instrument,  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  That  secession  was  the  extreme  means,  in  the 
sense  that  the  right  of  revolution  as  such  a  means  is  sometimes  jus 
tified,  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  sacredness  and  blessings  of 
written  constitutional  government,  and  for  these  purposes  only. 

Now  brush  the  cobwebs  and  preconceived  notions  from  the  mental 
vision  and  let  us  measure  by  the  sternest  logic  and  the  strictest  of 
universally  recognized  rules  these  sweeping  premises,  standards  of 
conduct  for  which  our  fathers  fought  and  for  which  many  gave 
their  lives  and  for  which  our  mothers  made  the  most  supreme  sac 
rifices. 

First,  then  exactly  what  do  we  mean  by  secession?  We  are  to 
examine  specific  conduct,  not  the  mere  academic  definition  of  the 
word  secession.  The  question  before  us  is:  What  is  meant  by  the 
secession  of  certain  States  in  the  southern  part  of  the  United  States 
in  1861? 

For  the  purpose  of  finding  the  legal  ground  upon  which  those 
Southern  States  acted,  it  is  immaterial  whether  we  regard  the 
acts  comprehended  by  the  word  secession  in  this  connection  as  acom- 
plished  or  attempted  secession,  but  it  is  interesting  to  recall  that 
those  in  the  exercise  of  the  chief  functions  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  and  a  large  part  of  Northern  people  generally  insisted  in  1861 
(contrary  to  prior  Northern  doctrine  and  practice)  that  no  South 
ern  State  could  secede,  could  get  out  of  the  Union  ;  while  four 
years  later,  after  the  South  had  worn  out  her  swords  and  had  broken 
her  bayonets,  and  her  brave  boys  were  mostly  asleep  beneath  the 
golden  rods  of  the  summer  and  the  withering  leaves  of  somber 
winter,  the  same  pro-Union  people  generally  and  the  functionaries 
of  the  United  States  Government  were  sordid  and  cruel  in  holding 
that  the  seceding  States  were  out  of  the  Union  and  as  sovereign  and 
independent  States  had  ceased  to  functionate  as  units  of  the  Union  ! 
So  to  avoid  confusion  of  thought  upon  this  point  it  may  be  assumed 
without  fear  of  successful  contradiction  that  the  seceding  States  were 

41 


at  least  tie  facto  out  of  the  Union.  That  a  course  of  conduct  does 
not  reach  its  final  goal  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  not  legally  taken. 
So  the  secession  here  under  consideration  may  be  broadly  and  cor 
rectly  defined  as  the  act  or  acts  of  the  Southern  States,  each  exer 
cising  what  we  call  its  sovereign  political  powers,  the  purpose  of 
which  was  to  sever  allegiance  to  and  connection  with  the  Union. 

The  Union  was  and  yet  is  the  relation  between  each  State  and 
a  sovereignty  known  as  the  United  States  (or  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment)  which  was  created  by  and  which  exists  by  the  authority 
of  that  wonderful,  written  instrument  known  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

Hence  secession  was  the  act  of  a  State  as  such  by  which  it  at  least 
sought  to  become  and  for  a  time  was  de  facto  independent  of  the 
United  States,  out  of  the  Union,  just  as  each  colony  became  by  revo 
lution  independent  of  and  out  of  the  British  Empire  back  in  1776. 

Mr.  Lincoln  who  was  at  the  time  as  President  the  chief  executive 
of  the  United  States  took  the  position  that  no  State  could  withdraw 
and  become  completely  independent.  So  as  the  Southern  States 
one  by  one  persisted  in  the  secession  course  Mr.  Lincoln  sent  Federal 
troops  into  the  South  to  reestablish  where  broken  and  to  maintain 
Federal  authority — not  to  free  the  slaves  or  affect  in  the  least  slav 
ery.  To  resist  this  invasion  by  armed  force  the  seceding  States 
raised  troops  to  defend  the  newly  asserted  independence,  just  as  the 
colonies  did  back  in  1776  with  regard  to  Great  Britain,  the  South- 
ern  States  organizing  in  the  meantime  a  central  government  known 
as  the  Confederate  States  of  America.  Thus  the  war  came  on  apace. 

Then  since  secession  was  either  a  withdrawal  or  an  effort  to 
withdraw  from  the  Union,  to  become  completely  independent  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  our  first  inquiry  must  be: 
AY  hat  is  the  relation  of  each  state  to  the  Union?  In  finding  this 
relation  we  necessarily  define  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
also  called  the  Federal  Government. 

The  first  thing  we  discover,  as  just  intimated,  when  we  come  to 
see  exactly  what  the  American  Union  is,  when  we  really  discern 
the  universally  acknowledged  fundamental  of  all  fundamentals  re 
garding  its  existence,  is  that  the  Constitution  is  the  one  source  of 
its  power  and  authority,  the  sole  source  of  its  vitality;  and  so  out 
side  of  or  minus  this  Constitution  there  would  be  no  Union,  no 
United  States  of  America.  This  great,  basal  truth  is  one  of  the 
settled  and  established  facts  concerning  our  American  govern 
ment. 

In  1SK5,  when  Marshall  of  Virginia  and  Story  of  Massachusetts, 
two  great  constitutional  lawyers,  were  members  of  the  bench,  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  State,  the  entire  bench  concurring 
said : 

"The  government,  then,  of  the  United  States  can  claim  no  powers 
which  are  not  granted  to  it  by  the  Constitution,  and  the  powers 

42 


granted  must  be  such  as  are  expressly  given,  or  given  by 
necessary  implication.'7  (1  Wheaton  (U.  S.  Keports),  .3*26.) 

In  L906  Mr.  Justice  Brewer,  speaking  for  that  same  high  court, 
said  :  "As  heretofore  stated  the  constant  declaration  of  this  court 
from  the  beginning  is  that  this  government  (of  the  United  States) 
is  one  of  enumerated  powers." 

Then  as  showing  the  place  where  that  enumeration  is  found  the 
court  in  1906  quoted  with  entire  approval  the  words  from  the  decis 
ion,  as  written  by  Story  of  Massachusetts  in  1816,  "the  United 
StaU's  can  claim  no  powers  which  are  not  granted  to  it  by  the  Con 
stitution." 

This  fact,  a  most  basal  truth,  is  found  not  alone  in  the  decisions 
of  the  courts ;  but  it  is  the  great  principle  by  which  all  departments 
of  the  Federal  Government  are  admittedly  controlled.  It  is  the 
practical  fact  in  all  the  activities  of  the  general  government. 

There  is  another  similarly  fundamental  truth,  practical  fact: 

The  United  States  government  does  not  enjoy  spontaneous  or 
original  or  inherent  sovereignty;  all  of  its  sovereign  powers  are 
delegated.  This  fact  is  just  as  universally  and  as  practically  recog 
nized  as  the  other.  "The  government  of  the  United  States  is  one  of 
delegated,  limited,  and  enumerated  powers.7'  is  one  of  the  hundreds 
of  statement?  of  this  truth  repeated  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  case 
of  the  United  States  vs.  Harris  (106  U.  S.  (Supreme  Court  Ke 
ports),  635.). 

There  is  a  dispute  whether  the  States  created  the  Federal 
Government,  delegated  to  it  the  powers  it  has,  or  whether  it  is  the 
creature  of  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States  acting  as  a  great 
sovereign  political  unit.  It  appears  to  me,  since  the  Constitution 
went  from  its  framers  back  to  the  States,  Itacl-  fo  each  separate  tftate 
for  its  independent  action,  too  clear  for  argument  that  it  is  the 
creature  of  the  States,  particularly  since  three-fourths  of  the  States 
had  to  approve  it  before  it  became  operative  and  three-fourths  may 
now  amend  it.  (Constitution,  Art.  V.). 

And  all  the  more  that  this  must  be  true  when  we  recall  that  at 
the  formation  of  the  Federal  Government  and  before  the  ratifica 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  "thirteen  dependent  colonies  became  thir 
teen  independent  States;"  that  is,  in  other  words,  before  the  rati 
fication  of  the  Constitution  "each  State  had  a  right  to  govern  itself 
by  is  own  authority  and  its  own  laws,  without  any  control  by  any 
other  power  on  earth."  (Ware  vs.  Hilton,  3  Dallas'.  111!) :  Mcllvaine 
vs.  Coxe,  4  ('ranch,  212:  Manchester  vs.  Mass..  139  U.  S.  257  : 
Johnson  vs.  McTntosh,  8  Wheaton.  395:  Shivley  vs.  Bowlby.  152  U. 
S.  14. )  But  we  need  not  stop  to  debate  this  question  here  or  let  it 
bother  us  in  considering  secession.  At  the  time  of  secession  we  had 
a  certain  kind  of  government,  the  same  we  have  now.  in  fact :  and 
however  it  was  created  we  know  that  the  universally  admitted  facts 
are  that  the  Federal  Government  gets  its  vital  breath  from  the  Con- 

43 


sitution  ;  that  all   its  powers  are  enumerated  in  that  Constitution 
and  are  delegated  1lirouyli  it. 

Regardless  of  from  whom  or  from  what  dclcydlctJ.  this  fact  of  the 
delegation  from  xoinc  oilier  coin /i/cfc/if  xorcre'ujn  jtoircr  is  an  im 
portant  one  in  considering  secession.  Many  errors  have  been  made 
by  confusing  the  powers  of  the  United  States  as  they  might  he  under 
the  general  nature  of  sovereignty  with  what  they  really  are  under 
the  limited  and  delegated  sovereignty  it  really  has.  "The  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  has  no  inherent  common  law  prerogative 
and  it  has  no  power  to  interfere1  in  the  personal  or  social  relations 
of  citizens  by  virtue  of  authority  deducible  from  the  general  nature 
of  sovereignty,"  as  a  recognized  law  authority  correctly  states  the 
actual  practical  and  accepted  fact.  (39  Cyc.  694). 

Then,  the  United  States  being  a  government  of  limited  powers, 
lacking  any  power  over  very  many  subjects  which  must  be  controlled 
or  produce  chaotic  confusion,  it  follows  that  the  powers  or  sover 
eignty  wherein  the  United  States  is  limited,  which  were  never  en 
trusted  to  it,  must  rest  somewhere.  As  summarized  by  a  leading 
law  authority,  deduced  from  universally  admitted  decisions,  here  is 
full  government  in  America : 

"The  powers  of  sovereignty  in  the  United  States  are  divided  be 
tween  the  government  of  the  Union  and  those  of  the  States.  They 
are  each  sovereign  with  respect  to  the  objects  committed  to  it,  and 
neither  sovereign  with  respect  to  the  objects  committed  to  the 
other."  (26  Ruling  Case  Law,  1417.) 

Here  is  the  same  truth  in  the  language  of  the  justices  of  the 
supreme  court  of  Massachusetts  : 

"It  was  a  bold,  wise  and  successful  attempt  to  place  the  people 
under  two  distinct  governments,  each  sovereign  and  independent 
within  its  own  sphere  of  action,  and  dividing  the  jurisdiction  be 
tween  them,  not  by  territorial  limits,  and  not  by  the  relation  of  su 
perior  and  subordinate,  but  by  classifying  the  subjects  of  govern 
ment  and  designating  those  over  which  each  has  entire  and  inde 
pendent  jurisdiction."  (14  Gray  (Mass.  Reports),  616.) 

In  1904  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  stated  the  same 
fact  in  these  words : 

"In  this  republic  there  is  a  dual  system  of  government,  Xational 
and  State,  and  each  within  its  own  domain  is  supreme."  (Matter 
of  Heff,  197  U.  S.  505.) 

In  an  opinion  written  for  the  court  by  Mr.  Justice  Day  of  Ohio, 
the  same  high  court  in  1917  said: 

"The  maintenance  of  the  authority  of  the  States  over  matters 
purely  local  is  as  essential  to  the  preservation  of  our  institutions  as 
is  the  conservation  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Federal  power  in  all 
matters  entrusted  to  the  Xation  by  the  "Federal  Constitution. 

"In  interpreting  the  Constitution  it  must  never  be  forgotten  that 
the  Xation  is  made  up  of  States  to  which  are  entrusted  the  powers 
of  local  government.  And  to  them  and  to  the  people  the  powers  not 

44 


expressly  delegated  to  the  National  (ioyernment  arc  reserved.  The 
power  of  the  States  to  regulate  their  purely  internal  affairs  by  such 
laws  as  seem  wise  to  the  local  authority  is  inherent  and  has  never 
heen  snrrcdered  to  the  general  government,"  (Hammer  v.  Dagen- 
hart,  vM7  U.  S.  .275.) 

Then,  it  is  clear  and  certain,  the  Union  is  one  of  States — States 
each  of  which  is  as  absolutely  and  independently  sovereign  with 
reference  to  the  objects  or  affairs  not  committed  to  the  government 
of  the  United  States  as  is  the  United  States  with  reference  to  the 
specific,  delegated  and  enumerated  objects  and  affairs  within  its 
jurisdiction  solely  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution.  And  don't  forget 
the  distinction  :  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  is  delegated; 
that  of  each  State  is  inherent.  Hence,  some  light  upon  the  sover 
eignty  of  the  State  may  rightly  be  had  from  a  consideration  of  the 
nature  of  sovereignty  in  general. 

These  all-important  facts  were  well  understood  and  recognized 
by  the  seceding  States  in  1861.  The  war  of  1861  to  1865  did  not 
change  the  nature  of  our  government  or  abate  in  the  least  the 
dignity  of  the  inherent  sovereignty  of  each  State.  Over  and  again 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  finds  it  necessary  to  em 
phasize  this  truth.  Many  persons  are  under  the  erroneous  im 
pression  that  in  any  and  all  case  of  unreconcilable  conflict  between 
the  United  States  and  a  State  over  any  and  all  subjects  the  decision 
and  action  of  the  United  States  becomes  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land.  Nay.  not  so,  as  the  above  evidence  proves  to  any  open  mind. 
And  I  earnestly  desire  that  particularly  our  young  men  and  women 
of  the  South  will  bear  this  governmental  fact  in  mind  when  con 
sidering  the  secession  by  Southern  States  in  1861.  And  this,  too, 
by  all  means : 

Each  State  has  a  most  vital  attribute  the  United  States  has  not 
under  the  law  of  the  Constitution.  Without  the  States  or  in  case 
of  an  ignored  or  otherwise  abrogated  Constitution,  the  United 
States  as  a  government,  the  Union,  ceases  to  exist.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  the  words  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  1868  when  there  cer 
tainly  were  no  pro-secessionists  on  the  bench : 

"The  people  of  each  State  compose  a  State,  having  its  own  gov 
ernment  and  endowed  with  all  the  functions  essential  to  separate 
and  independent  existence."  (Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wallace, 
71  :  Texas  v.  White,  Id.  725 ;  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  &c.,  157  U.  S. 
560;  X.  B.  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  193  U.  S.  348.) 

There  you  are !  Don't  stop  to  quarrel  as  to  who  or  wrhat  created 
this  situation,  this  peculiar  and  dual  government,  this  distinctive!} 
American  government  These  definitions  and  illustrations  state  it 
as  it  was  as  soon  as  the  Constitution  superseded  the  Articles  of  Con 
federation,  as  it  was  at  secession,  as  it  is.  The  results  of  the  wTar  for 
the  independence  of  the  Confederacy  somewhat  dulled  the  usual 
conception  of  the  reality,  of  the  dignity,  of  the  real  nature  of  State 
sovereignty :  and  my  earnest  hope  is  that  we  shall  from  now  on 

45 


swing  back  to  tin-  Tnu'  grasp  of  what  the  American  States  each  is, 
to  that  universal  understanding  which  the  Stat«-  had  when  the 
Constitution  was  adopted.  f(,r.  after  all.  sixain  it  must  be  remem 
bered,  that  greatest  instrument  is  construed  in  the  light  of  the  con 
temporaneous  history  and  existing  conditions  at  its  formation  and 
adoption.  "That  which  it  meant  when  adopted  it  means  now/'  said 
the  Supreme  Court  in  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  Howard.  42<>,  a  rule 
followed  universally.  (See.  anioni:  many.  Missouri  v.  Illinois,  180 
V.  s.  219;  In  re  Debts,  158  TL  S.  .V.H  ;  S.  C.  V.  U.  S.,  199  U.  S. 
450.) 

Xow,  aside  from  its  practical  bearing  upon  the  problems  which 
arise  today  and  those  which  will  press  for  solution  tomorrow,  here 
is  the  bearing  of  all  fhis  upon  the  historical  interpretation  of  se- 
cession:  If  the  delegated  powers  of  the  Federal  Covernmet  are  per 
verted  by  those  exercising  them,  or  misused  or  non-used,  or  powers 
not  -'ranted  are  assumed,  persistently,  endangering  the  domestic 
peace  of  a  State,  and  this  condition  is  backed  and  encouraged  by  a 
great  bulk  of  opinion  in  other  States  and  aided  and  abetted  by  laws 
of  those  other  States,  irlinf  /">•  ///  In'  <I<>nc  by  flic  *ufft> rin</  State? 
What  would  have  been  the  answer  to  this  question  by  tiny  State, 
North  or  South,  at  the  formation  of  the  United  State- ': 

Meet  the  issue  squarely.  Grant  that  such  a  condition  has  arisen, 
where  are  we?  Such  a  condition  existing,  there  remain  the  sover 
eign  powers  of  the  State,  the  fidiniffcilli/  uti<leli'<i<il<><l  ami  Inherent 
tnrcn'iii /////,  having  all  the  machinery  of  local  government  mln/iinfe 
when  not  thus  obstructed  for  the  protection  of  the  domestic  peace, 
for  the  defense  of  the  property  and  lives  of  its  citizens,  "endowed 
with  all  the  functions  essential  to  separate  and  independent  exist 
ence,"  and  thus  equipped,  thus  endowed,  mind  you.  under  and 
pursuant  to  the  Constitution,  tin-onJhn/  fo  flic  fiunbinient'iJ  bm\ 
Fundamental  law  because  constitutionally  recognized  and  guaran 
teed,  notwithstanding  the  inherent  and  reserved  powers  of  each 
State  are  not  derived  from  the  Constitution.  In  the  light  of  the 
contemporaneous  history  and  existing  conditions,  to  this  question 
what  would  have  been  the  answer  of  the  people  of  any  State  when 
they  insisted  at  ratification  upon  and  obtained  the  Tenth  Amend 
ment  : 

"The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Consti 
tution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States 
respectively,  or  to  the  people." 

The  answer  must  be  that  each  State  would  have  said  that  thus 
guarded  the  Constitution  left  to  it,  in  tlie  event  of  the  conditions 
irhich  I  hiiri-  uxxiuiieil.  the  right  to  defend  the  admitted  inherent 
sovereignty  by  any  means  adequate  for  that  purpose.  "The  Con 
stitution  is  a  written  instrument.  As  such  its  meaning  does  not 
alter.  That  which  it  meant  when  adopted  it  means  now."  "The 
Constitution  is  to  be  interpreted  by  what  was  the  condition  of  the 
parties  to  it  when  it  was  formed,  by  their  objects  and  purpo- 

46 


forming  it.  and  by  the  actual  recognition  in  it  of  the  dissimilar  in- 
>t  it ut ions  of  the  States." 

Then-  i>  another  fundamental  rule  followed  in  tin-  interpreta 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  and  that  is  that  light  is  found  in  decla 
rations  by  the  States  when  ratifying  that  instrument,  in  imparting 
to  the  Cnited  States  the  breath  of  life  which  it  would  never  have 
had  but  for  the  action  of  three-fourths  of  the  States  concerned. 
So  al>o  we  no  to  the  debates  of  the  ratifying  conventions  and  "to 
the  views  of  those  who  adopted  the  Constitution"  and  get  all  the 
light  possible  from  contemporaneous  history  and  existing  condi 
tions.  (For  leading  authorities  see  4  Ency.  ('.  S.  Court  Reports, 
pages  .')(>  and  41.)  One  great  mistake  too  many  make  in  examin 
ing  the  legal  justification  of  secession  is  to  see  it  too  exclusively  in 
the  light  of  today  and  under  the  brighter  conditions  subsequent  to 
that  war.  Such  an  error  is  fatal  to  a  just  estimate  of  secession. 
The  question  is:  Did  the  States  think  they  were  getting  into  "an 
entangling  alliance"  from  which,  come  whatever  woe  might  befall, 
they  could  not  withdraw?  Do  the  light  from  ratifying  conven 
tions,  the  views  of  those  who  ratified  the  Constitution,  and  the 
weight  of  contemporary  history  indicate  that  the  States  meant 
forever  to  surrender  for  whatever  domestic  evil  might  result  some 
of  their  most  important  attributes  of  sovereignty?  I  don't  see 
how  any  open  minded  and  sincere  mind  can  in  the  light  of  the 
meat  bulk  of  the  evidence  upon  these  questions  relating  to  the 
formation  and  vitalization  of  the  United  States  believe  that  under 
any  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  that  instrument  was  meant 
to  take  from  th;-  States  or  from  a  State  forever  the  invaluable  right 
of  re-inning  the  delegated  sovereignty  when  in  the  wisdom  of  the 
people  of  a  State  such  a  resumption  (that  is,  secession)  appeared 
necessary  for  domestic  peace  and  to  protect  and  make  effective  the 
undelegated  sovereignty.  Mr.  Justice  Catron,  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  quoting  from  the  famous  Federalist 
"in  favor  of  State  power,"  said  : 

"These  remarks  were  made  to  quiet  the  fears  of  the  people,  and 
to  clear  up  doubts  on  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  then  before 
them  for  adoption  by  the  State  conventions."  (License  Cases,  5 
Howard,  607.) 

The  great  bulk  of  the  people  of  the  several  then  totally  inde 
pendent  States  were  afraid  of  the  centralized  power  about  to  be 
loaned  to  the  United  States  Government :  and  the  right  to  resume 
the  delegated  powers  should  the  experiment  become  unhappy  was 
the  great  reason  which  brought  the  States  to  embark  upon  the 
venture.  They  were  sure  they  had  fixed  the  fundamental  docu 
ments  so  that  they  mi-lit  legally,  constitutionally  and  morally 
rightly  get  out  if  any  State  so  desired.  Some  of  the  ratifying  con 
ventions  sought  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  Virginia,  for  in 
stance,  interpreting  the  Constitution  as  part  of  her  ratification. 
said : 

47 


"The  powers  granted  under  the  Constitution  *  *  *  may  be 
resumed  !>y  the  people"  "whensoever  the  same  shall  be  perverted  to 
their  injury  or  oppression." 

New  York  followed  by  Rhode  Island,  as  part  of  the  res  gestae, 
with  referenee  to  the  powers  delegated  to  the  Federal  Government, 
said  that  "the  powers  of  government  may  be  resumed  by  the  people 
whenever  it  shall  become  necessary  to  their  happiness/' 

Applying'  with  such  evidence  a  proper  reasoning  deducible  from 
the  general  nature  of  sovereignty,  it  follows  that  the  existence  of  a 
sovereignty  "endowed  with  all  the  functions  essential  to  separate 
and  independent  existence"  must  have  the  attribute  of  self-defense. 
The  right  of  self-defense  implies  the  right  to  choose  the  method. 
That  is  not  sovereignty  which  has  not  the  right  of  self-preservation. 
Sovereignty  without  the  right  of  self-determined  existence  is  un 
thinkable.  Sovereignty  must  be  dignified  by  all  that  the  word 
implies.  "As  men  whose  intentions  require  no  concealment  gener 
ally  employ  the  words  which  most  directly  and  aptly  express  the 
ideas  they  intend  to  convey,  the  enlightened  patriots  who  framed 
our  t'onsitution.  and  the  people  who  adopted  it,  must  be  understood 
to  have  intended  what  they  have  said,"  correctly  said  Chief  Justice 
Marshall  in  Gibbons  v.  Ogden  (9  YVheaton,  188.  See  also  Kidd  v. 
Pearson,  1.28  U.  S.  20 ;  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  36;  Hodges 
v.  I".  S.  203  IT.  S.,  16.)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  limited 
sovereignty.  There  is  division  of  sovereign  powers;  and  that  is  the 
condition  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution  in  this  country. 
But  sovereignty  is  a  self-explanatory  word  and  meant  at  secession 
exactly  what  it  meant  at  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 

Shorly  before  leaving  the  bench  in  1915  Mr.  Justice  Hughes  of 
Xew  York  prepared  the  opinion  in  Kennedy  v.  Becker  (241  IT.  S. 
r>(>:> ).  As  thus  prepared  this  opinion  was  subsequently  adopted  and 
delivered  by  Chief  Justice  White  as  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  Concerning  the  power  of  the  State  of  Xew  York 
to  control  lands  which  were  the  subject  of  a  treaty  between  Robert 
Morris  and  the  Seneca  Nation  of  Indians  in  1797,  the  court  says: 

"But  the  existence  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  State  was  well  under 
stood,  and  this  conception  involved  all  that  was  necessarily  implied 
in  that  sovereignty,  whether  fully  appreciated  or  not." 

Upon  that  impregnable  position  stood  each  seceding  State  in 
1861. 

In  the  South  we  are  coming  too  much  to  whisper  that  "our 
fathers  did  their  duty  as  they  saw  it."  We  should  be  calling  to 
the  world  from  the  housetop  that  our  Confederate  fathers  were 
riglit.  For  historical  truth  we  should  speak  in  no  uncertain  terms 
in  the  schools,  should  sound  the  facts  in  trump-blasts  wherever  the 
subject  is  under  consideration;  we  should  let  the  world  know  that 
we  know  that  those  fathers  are  entitled  to  as  much  glory  for  their 
defense  of  their  wives,  their  mothers,  their  children,  the  domestic 
peace  of  their  State  by  wielding  the  inherent  sovereignty  to  recall 

48 


the  delegated  and  niisned  sove relent)',  as  in  the  defence  of  that  dele 
gated  snvcivigntv  against  a  European  foe,  a  defence  which  the 
South  rendered  gladly  in  our  war  with  Spain*  and  which  she  ren 
dered  so  brilliantly  in  our  war  with  Germany  that  the  right  of 
local  self-goverment  might  not  perish  from  the  earth!  "To  insure 
domestic  tranquil! ty" — one  of  the  five  reasons  assigned  in  the 
preamble  as  the  grounds  for  the  establishment  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States — to  better  safeguard  the  lives  of  the  women 
and  children  of  the  South;  to  avert  a  destruction  of  some  of  the 
State's  most  important  inherent  powers  of  sovereignty, — in  short, 
to  escape  imminent  disaster  involving  the  most  vital  and  basal 
human  rights,  the  seceding  States  faced  one  or  two  courses  of 
action,  short  of  the  most  servile  submission  to  the  greatest  wrongs : 
they  must  either  withdraw  from  the  Union;  or,  remaining  in  the 
Union  resort  to  armed  force  against  Northern  States  and  the  Fed 
eral  Government.  But  the  situation  at  that  day  can  best  he 
appreciated  when  we  consider  the  constitutional  facts  here 
briefly  outlined  in  the  immediate  light  of  what  constituted  the 
imminent  disaster,  the  ominous  peril  which  shrouded  the  South  in 
increasing  gloom.  There  is  not  space  here,  unfortunately,  to  dis 
cuss  those  powerful  causes  of  that  secession.**  Those  causes  are 
too  inadequately  presented  in  text-books  and  too  little  taught  even 
in  the  South.  The  production  of  this  work,  however,  by  the  Sons 
of  Confederate  Veterans  is  one  among  other  happy  signs  of  a 
revival  in  the  interest  of  historical  truth.  The  truth  and  the  whole 
truth,  is  the  battle  cry  of  the  great  organization  of  which  I  have 
the  honor  to  be  Historian-in-Chief, — a  cry  uttered  from  the  soul 
of  sincerity  and  without  the  least  thought  or  purpose  of  animosity 
or  bitterness.  In  the  interest  of  history,  for  we  do  teach  the  chil 
dren  something  about  the  great  war  which  followed  secession,  and 
to  be  just  to  our  Confederate  fathers  we  must  have  a  fuller  grasp 
of  the  fundamental  legal  grounds  of  secession  and  of  the  weighty 
causes  which  moved  the  South — not  that  she  believed  in  secession 
at  will  but  solely  and  as  an  extreme  measure — to  resume  certainly 
de  facto  the  sovereignty  delegated  to  the  United  States. 

When  the  causes  of  secession  are  considered  in  the  light  of  con 
stitutional  fundamentals  herein  outlined,  we  more  readily  avoid 
the  illogical  contention  sometimes  met  which  insists  "that  the 
results  of  the  war  settled  the  question  against  the  secessionists." 
Well,  well  !  !  It  is  axiomatic  that  war  settles  no  great  question ! 
Didn't  the  better  thinking  part  of  the  world  gladly  agree  to  reverse 
the  decision  of  a  great  question  Germany  thought  she  had  settled 

*Major  Ewing,  the  author  of  this  chapter,  volunteered  to  defend  the 
United  States  in  that  war  and  rendered  ardent  service  to  the  United  States 
in  the  war  with  Germany. — Editorial  note. 

**The  author  of  this  chapter  hopes  to  reprint  in  booklet  this  contri 
bution  together  with  a  brief  presentation  of  the  causes  of  secession.  For 
particulars  write  C'obden  Publishing  Company.  Ballston.  Virginia. 

49 


forever  by  a  decisive  war?  And  didn't  that  reversal  of  the  work 
of  gory,  cruel  brute  force  restore  to  wronged  and  outraged  France 
suiTering  Alsace-Loraine ?  Ah,  and  more:  America  justly  poured 
out  her  blood  and  lavished  her  gold  in  that  great  world  war  just 
closing  to  help  establish  for  the  benefit  of  all  people  the  principles 
upon  which  rest  our  separation  from  Great  Britain  and  the  de 
fdc/o  secession  of  the  Southern  States:  the  inalienable  right  of  a 
people  to  break  away  from  an  objectionable  and  hurtful  govern 
ment  ! 

There  will  never  be  another  Southern  secession.  Nobody  thinks 
of  it  as  a  remedy  for  anything  now:  and  no  part  of  this  Tnioii 
will  ever  dare  rc/icttl  I  he  Xor/licrn  nullification  of  I  lie  Conx/i- 
tu/ion  to  avoid  the  evils  of  which — and  not  to  destroy  the  I'nion 
and  not  to  protect  or  to  perpetuate  negro  slavery — secession  became 
the  remedy  to  preserve  the  sacred  binding  power  of  a  written  Con 
stitution  without  which  the  Union  perishes  certainly;  and  again 
because  the  Federal  Government  will  never  again  be  as  limp  and 
spineless  and  complacent  in  defending  the  South  against  such  evils 
as  nullification  and  other  wrongs  by  Northern  States  and  some 
Northern  people,  to  escape  all  of  which  our  fathers  found  secession 
the  one  probably  bloodless  remedy,  justified  by  fundamental  con 
stitutional  law.  and  the  one  available  remedy  with  honor. 


50 


rlhe  South  and  Germany 

By  Lyon  G.  Tyler,  President  of  William  and  Mary  College.  Va. 

At  the  moment  when  the  Tinted  States  had  declared  war  against 
Germany,  there  seemed  to  be  a  concerted  effort  by  Northern  speak 
er-  and  writers  to  cast  shirs  upon  the  old  South  by  drawing  analo 
gies  between  it  and  Germany.  This  course  was  taken  without  any 
regard  for  the  feelings  of  the  present  generation  of  Southern  men, 
who  see  no  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  the  conduct  of  their  ancestors. 

Probably  the  most  vicious  of  these  attacks  appeared  in  the  Xew 
York  Times.  Under  the  title  cff  "The  Hohenzollerns  and  the  Slave 
Power/'  the  spirit  of  the  old  South  to  1861  is  said  to  have  been 
i— rntiallv  analogous  to  that  of  Germany.  The  slave  power  was 
"arbitrary,  aggressive,  oppressive."  "The  slave  power  proclaimed 
the  war  which  was  immediately  begun  to  be  a  war  of  defence  in  the 
true  Hohenzollern  temper."  "The  South  fought  to  maintain  and 
extend  slavery,  and  slavery  was  destroyed  to  the  great  and  lasting- 
gain  of  the  people  who  fought  for  it,  so  that  within  a  score  of 
years  from  its  downfall,  the  Southern  people  would  not  have  re 
stored  it  had  it  been  possible  to  do  so." 

Here  is  the  old  trick  of  representing  the  weaker  power  the  ag 
gressive  factor  in  history.  An  earlier  instance  of  it  occurs  in  the 
history  of  the  Times  s  own  State.  The  early  New  England  writers 
in  excusing  their  own  aggressiveness  represent  the  rich  New 
England  colonies  with  their  thousands  as  in  imminent  danger  of 
being  wiped  out  and  extinguished  by  the  handful  of  Dutchmen  at 
New  York.  And  so  it  has  been  with  the  Southern  question.  In 
one  breath  the  Northern  historian  has  talked  like  the  Times  of 
the  "arbitrary,  aggressive  and  oppressive  power"  of  the  South,  and 
in  the  next  has  exploited  figures  to  show  the  declining  power  of 
the  South  from  the  Revolution  down  to  1801.  With  its  "inde 
fensible  institution"  the  South's  attitude  was  necessarily  a  purely 
defensive  one,  and  Calhoun  never  at  furthest  asked  any  more  than 
a  balance  of  power  to  protect  its  social  and  economic  fabric.  The 
North  began  the  attack  in  1785  with  a  proposition  to  cede  to  Spain 
the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  River.  In  1820,  it  attacked 
again  when  Missouri  applied  for  admission  as  a  State  with  a  con 
stitution  which  permitted  slavery.  Tt  attacked  once  more  in  1828 
and  1832,  when,  despite  the  earnest  protest  of  the  South,  it 
fastened  on  the  country  the  protective  tariff  system :  and  the  attack 
was  continued  till  both  Congress  and  the  presidency  were  con 
trolled  by  them.  When  in  pursuance  of  the  decision  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  the  Southerners  asked  for  the  privilege  of  tempor- 

51 


arily  holding  slaves  in  the  Western  territories  until  the  population 
was  numerous  enough  in  each  territory  to  decide  the  continuance 
of  slavery  for  itself,  it  was  denied  them  by  the  North.  It  is  certain 
that  if  nature  had  been  left  to  regulate  the  subject  of  slavery,  not 
one  of  the  Western  territories  would  have  had  slavery — the  odds, 
by  reason  of  emigration  and  unfitness  of  soil  and  climate,  being 
so  greatly  against  it. 

Did  the  slave  power  "proclaim  the  war"  as  the  Times  asserts? 
Every  sensible  man  knows  that  the  South  would  have  been  very 
glad  to  have  had  independence  without  war.  But  Lincoln  made 
the  ostensible  ground  of  the  war  an  attack  on  Fort  Sumter,  when 
after  vacillating  for  almost  a  month,  he  forced  the  attack,  contrary 
to  the  advice  of  his  own  cabinet,  by  sending  an  armed  squadron  to 
reinforce  the  Fort.  Not  a  man  was  killed,  and  yet  Lincoln  without 
calling  Congress,  which  had  the  sole  power  under  the  constitution, 
suspended  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  instituted  a  blockade,  and  set 
to  work  to  raise  and  organize  an  army  to  subdue  the  South.  Presi 
dent  Wilson  waited  for  two  years  till  two  hundred  American  citi 
zens  had  been  killed  by  the  Germans,  and  even  then  took  no  hostile 
step  without  the  action  of  Congress.  Who  had  the  "Hohenzollern 
temper"— the  North  or  the  South  in  1861  ? 

Did  the  "South  fi^ht  to  maintain  and  extend  slavery?"  The 
South  fought  for  independence  and  the  control  of  its  own  actions, 
but  it  did  not  fight  to  extend  slavery.  So  far  from  doing  this,  by 
secession  the  South  restricted  slavery  by  handing  over  to  the  North 
the  Western  territory,  and  its  constitution  provided  against  the 
importation  of  slaves  from  abroad. 

Slavery  was  indeed  destroyed  by  the  war,  and  it  is  perfectly 
true  that  no  one  in  the  South  would  care  to  restore  it.  At  the 
same  time  we  see  no  reason  why  we  should  be  grateful  for  the  way 
in  which  slavery  was  destroyed.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Union, 
there  was  a  strong  sentiment  in  the  Southern  States,  especially 
in  Maryland,  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  against  the  existence 
of  slavery,  but  the  action  of  three  of  the  New  England  States  in 
joining  with  the  two  extreme  Southern  States  to  keep  open  the 
slave  trade  for  twenty  years  through  an  article  in  the  constitution, 
and  the  subsequent  activity  of  New  England  shipping  in  bringing 
thousands  of  negroes  into  the  South,  made  its  abolition  a  great 
difficulty. 

No  country  ever  waged  a  war  on  principles  more  different  from 
Germany  than  did  the  Southern  States.  Germany  justified  its 
campaigns  of  "fri<>-htfulness"  on  the  plea  of  necessity,  but  in  any 
result  its  national  entity  was  secure.  The  South,  on  the  other 
hand,  knew  that  failure  in  arms  would  mean  the  extinction  of  its 
national  being,  but  there  were  some  things  it  could  not  do  even  to 
preserve  this,  and  so  "Robert  E.  Lee  commanded  her  armies  on 
land  and  Raphael  Semmes  roved  the  sea,  but  no  drop  of  innocent 
blood  stained  the  splendor  of  their  achievements. 

52 


While  T  am  glad  to  say  that  the  Xorth  did  not  go  as  far  as 
Germany  the  general  policy  of  its  warfare  was  the  same — one  of 
destruction  and  spoliation,  and  the  campaigns  of  Sheridan  and 
Sherman  will  always  stand  in  history  in  the  catalogue  of  the  cruel 
and  inhumane. 

The  expulsion  of  the  inhabitants  of  Atlanta  and  the  burning  of 
the  city  was  the  prototype  of  the  martyrdom  of  Louvain.  If  hoi  ins 
and  its  ancient  cathedral  have  suffered  less  from  the  shells  of  the 
Germans  than  beautiful  Columbia  and  Savannah  suffered  from 
the  torch  and  wanton  depredation  of  the  Federal  soldiers. 

In  an  article  in  a  prominent  magazine  a  writer  quotes  Lincoln's 
Gettysburg  address  and  states  that  these  last  words  of  his  speech— 
"That  the  nation  shall  under  God  have  a  new  birth  of  freedom, 
and  that  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the  people 
shall  not  perish  from  the  earth,"  described  the  great  cause  for 
which  Lincoln  sent  armies  into  the  field.  Here  is  the  same  lack 
of  logic  and  historic  accuracy.  The  Xorth  had  been  antagonistic 
to  the  South  from  the  first  days  of  union,  but  it  was  really  the 
jealousy  of  a  rival  nation.  The  chief  elements  that  first  entered 
into  the  situation  were  antagonistic  interests  and  different  occu 
pations.  Manufacturers  were  arrayed  against  agriculture,  a  pro 
tective  tariff  against  tariff  for  revenue.  Long  before  the  quick 
ening  of  the  Northern  conscience,  and  while  the  slave  trade  was 
being  actively  prosecuted  by  men  from  Xcw  England,  that  section 
was  particularly  violent  against  the  South.  Its  dislike  of  the  great 
democrat  Jefferson  went  beyond  all  words,  and  he  was  described 
by  the  Chief  Justice  of  Massachusetts  as  "an  apostle  of  atheism 
and  anarchy,  bloodshed  and  plunder."  How  much  of  real  oppo 
sition  to  slavery  was  mixed  with  this  old-time  jealousy  in  the 
Republican  plank  against  slavery  in  the  territories  in  1860  no  one 
can  exactly  say.  But  with  the  exception  of  the  abolitionists,  all 
persons — Democrats  and  Republicans  alike — were  unanimous  in 
saying  that  there  was  no  intention  of  interfering  with  slavery  in 
the  States.  Lincoln  was  emphatically  of  this  view,  and  so  declared 
in  his  inaugural  address. 

In  instituting  hostilities  soon  after,  had  he  avowed  that  he 
wished  to  raise  armies  to  fight  the  South  for  a  "new  birth  of  free 
dom"  and  to  keep  popular  government  "from  perishing  from  the 
earth,"  he  would  have  been  laughed  at.  Had  he  avowed  his  pur 
pose  of  raising  armies  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  none  but  the 
abolitionists  would  have  joined  him.  He  obtained  his  armies  only 
by  repeatedly  declaring  that  he  waged  war  merely  for  preserving 
the  Union. 


53 


OFFICERS. 

SONS  OF  CONFEDERATE  VETERANS 

1919-1920 

Commander-in-Chief,  N.  B.  Forrest,  Biloxi,  Miss. 
Adjutant-in-Chief,  Carl  Hinton,  Denver,  Colo. 

STAFF 

Quartermaster-in-Chief,  Jno.  Ashley  Jones,  Atlanta,  Ga. 
Inspector-in-Chief,  R.  Henry  Lake,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
Commissary-in-Chief,  Chas.  P.  Rowland,  Savannah,  Ga. 
Judge  Advocate-in-Cliief,  A.  L.  Gaston,  Chester,  S.  C. 
Surgeon-in-Chief,  Dr.  W.  C.  Galloway,  Wilmington,  N.  C. 
Chaplain-in-Chief,  Rev.  Henry  W.  Battle,  Cbarlottesville,  Va. 
Historian-in-Chief,  E.  W.  R.  Ewing,  Washington.  1).  C. 

EXECUTIVE  COUNCIL 

X.  R.  Forrest,  Biloxi,  Miss.,  Kx-OtTu-io  (Mia 
Kdgar  Scurry,  Wichita  Falls,  Tex. 
W.  McDonald  Lee,  Irvington,  \-<\. 
J.  W.  Me  Williams,  Monroe,  La. 
J.  Roy  Price,  Washington,  I).  C. 
Carl  Hinton,  Denver,  Colo. 

ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 

Clarence  J.  Owens,  Washington,  D.  C.,  Cha 
Krnest  G.  Baldwin,  Roanoke,  Va. 
Seymour  Stewart,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
W.  W.  Old,  Jr.,  Norfolk,  Va. 
W.  N.  Brandon,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 
R.  B.  Haughton,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
J.  W.  Apperson,  Biloxi,  Miss. 
Carl  Hinton,  Denver,  Colo. 

DEPARTMENT  COMMANDERS 

Army  No.  Va.  Dept.,  Jas.  F.  Tatem,  Norfolk,  Va. 
Army  Tenn.  Dept.,  B.  A.  Lincoln,  Columbus,  Miss. 
Army  Trans.-Miss.  Dept.,  S.  H.  King,  Jr.,  Tulsa,  Okla. 

DIVISION  COMMANDERS 
Alabama,  Dr.  W.  E.  Quin,  Fort  Payne. 
Arkansas,  A.  D.  Pope,  Magnolia. 
Colorado,  H.  W.  Lowrie,  Denver. 
Dist.  Columbia,  A.  S.  Parry,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Florida,  S.  L.  Lowry,  Tampa. 
Georgia,  Walter  P.  Andrews,  Atlanta. 
Kentucky,  R.  E.  Johnston,  Mayfield. 
Louisiana,  J.  W.  McWilliams,  Monroe. 
Maryland,  Henry  Hollyday,  Jr.,  Easton. 
Mississippi,  D.  M.  Featherston,  Holly  Springs. 
Missouri,  Todd  M.  George,  Independence. 
North  Carolina,  Geo.  M.  Coble,  Greensboro. 
Oklahoma,  Tate  Brady,  Tulsa. 
South  Carolina,  Weller  Roth  rock,  Aiken. 
Tennessee,  D.  S.  Etheridge,  Chattanooga. 
Texas,  C.  A.  Wright,  Fort  Worth. 
West  Virginia,  Ralph  Darden,  Elkins. 
Virginia,  S.  L.  Adams,  South  Boston. 
South  West,  E.  P.  Bujac,  Carlsbad,  N".  M. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


27*!"  5  21  u 


m  15  1977, 


• 

FEBl  3  1954  LU 


71986 

AUTO.OISC.OtC    7  "86 


REC'D  LD 

MAR  3     1959 

LD  21-95m-ll,'50(2877sl6)476 


GEHERM- 


.C.  BERKELEY 


51269 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2- month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


NOV06  1995 
"JUL291997 


20,000  (4/94) 


